f,. -^ 






P, ,-^^ 



'/-i 



''^.^ 






{^"^ 






vOC? 






/-■V 



'^r-. 






:-^:^"o'\"''\ 



\^^^. 



vOo, 



\^~ 



.^' 



^^ 



A^' ^' 






V* 



■N^^' '^^.- 



-^^ v^ 









■J' ,^\^' 



^•, .s^^■ 



.^^^\ 



^y.. <^- 



c5 -^^ 









"'^- 



•^/. 






'/*- 



\ I fl 



% 









.'X' 






,0 o. 



,/.o 



o,'^' 



. 4> 



<^^ 



v-iN- 



'/ 



O. 









K^ ^^ 



V^ 



.'«-' 



'>^^ ' 



,0 0, 



v'^' ■■->. 



'<^ 



'%: 



/ 



6'^ f 





^^^-^-^^S^-^^^z^-t^i^-t^z:^ 



THE 



REAT SPEECHES AND ORATIONS 



OF 



DANIEL WEBSTER 



WITH AN ESSAY 



ON 

)AXIEL WEBSTER AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE 



BY 



EDWIN P. WHIPPLE 



o ' 



^ 



' .*- 







BOSTON 

LITTLE, BROWN, & CO. 

1879 



LI . 

.6- 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1879, ^Y 

Little, Brown, & Co., 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress ^ Washington. 



^\^^ H O^Mr^ 



Cambridge : 
University Press : John Wilson and Son. 



PREFACE. 



The object of the present volume is not to supersede the 
standard edition of Daniel Webster's Works, in six octavo vol- 
umes, edited by Edward Everett, and originally issued in the 
year 1851, by the publishers of this volume of Selections. It 
is rather the purpose of the present publication to call atten- 
tion anew to the genius and character of Daniel Webster, as 
a lawyer, statesman, diplomatist, patriot, and citizen, and, by 
republishing some of his prominent orations and speeches of 
universally acknowledged excellence, to revive public interest 
in the great body of his works. In the task of selection, it 
has been impossible to do full justice to his powers; for 
among the speeches omitted in this collection are to be found 
passages of superlative eloquence, maxims of political and 
moral wisdom which might be taken as mottoes for elaborate 
treatises on the philosophy of law and legislation, and impor- 
tant facts and principles which no student of history of the 
United States, can overlook without betraying an ignorance 
of the great forces which influenced the legislation of the two 
Houses of Congress, from the time Mr. Webster first entered 
public life to the day of his death. 

It is to be supposed that, when Mr. Everett consented to 
edit the six volumes of his works, Mr. Webster indicated to 
him the orations, sjDeeches, and diplomatic despatches which 
he really thought might be of service to the public, and that 



IV PREFACE. 

he intended them as a kind of legacy, — a bequest to his coun- 
tr^men. 

The pul)hshers of this volume believe that a study of Mr. 
Webster's mind, heart, and character, as exhibited in the 
selections contained in the present volume, will inevitably 
direct all sympathetic readers to the great body of Mr. Web- 
ster's works. Among the eminent men who have influenced 
legislative assemblies in Great Britain and the United States, 
during the past hundred and twenty years, it is curious that 
only two have established themselves as men of the first 
class in English and American literature. These two men 
are Edmund Burke and Daniel Webster ; and it is only by 
the complete study of every thing which they authorized to 
be published under their names, that we can adequately com- 
prehend either their position among the political forces of 
their time, or their rank among the great masters of English 
eloquence and style. 



CONTENTS. 



FAOE 

Daniel Webster as a Master of English Style . , xi 



The Dartmouth College Case 1 

Argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, at Wash- 
ington, on the 10th of March, 1818. 

FmsT Settlejient of New England 25 

A Discourse delivered at Plymouth, on the 22d of December, 1820. 

Defence of Judge James Prescott 55 

The closing Appeal to the Senate of Massachusetts, in Mr. TVebster's 
" Argument on the Impeachment of James Prescott," April 24th, 
1821. 

The Revolution in Greece 57 

A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United 
States, on the 19th of January, 1824. 

The Tariff 77 

A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United 
States, on the 1st and 2d of April, 1824. 

The Case of <x[rbc$8 and Ogden Ill 

\n Argumi -^ m the Case of Gibbons and Ogden, in the Su- 

preme Court ot the United States, February Term, 1824. 

The Bunker Hill ]\Ionument 123 

An Address delivered at the Laving of the Corner-Stone of the 
Bunker Hill JNIonument at Charlestown, Massachusetts, on the 
17th of June, 1825. 

The Completion of the Bunker Hill INIonument . . 136 

An Address delivered on Bunker Hill, on the 17th of June, 1843, 
on Occasion of the Completion of the Monument. 



vi CONTENTS. 

Our Relations to the South American Republics . . 152 

Extracts from the Speech on " The Panama Mission," delivered in 
the House of Representatives of the United States, on the 14th of 
April, 182C. 

Adams and Jefferson 15G 

A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John 
Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, 
on the 2d of August, 1826. 

The Case op Ogden and Saunders 179 

An Argument made in the Case of Ogden and Saunders, in the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, January Term, 1827. 

The Murder of Captain Joseph White 189 

An Argument on the Trial of John Francis Knapp, for the Murder 
of Joseph White, of Salem, in Essex County, Massachusetts, on the 
Night of the 6th of April, 1830. 

The Reply to Hayne 227 

Second Speech on " Foot's Resolution," delivered in the Senate of 
the United States, on the 26th and 27th of January, 1830. 

The Constitution not a Compact between Sovereign 

States 273 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 16th of 
February, 1833, in Rej^ly to Mr. Calhoun's Speech on the Bill 
" Further to Provide for the Collection of Duties on Imports." 

Public Dinner at New York 307 

A Speech delivered at a Public Dinner given by a large Number of > ^ 
Citizens of New York, in Honor of Mr. Webster, on March 10th, /> 
1831. 

The Presidential Veto of the United States Bank 

Bill 320 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United StatvL he 11th of 

July, 1832, on the President's Veto of the Bank Bill. 

The Character of Washington 339 

A Speech delivered at a Public Dinner in the City of Washington, 
on the 22d of February, 1832, the Centennial Anniversary of 
Washington's Birthday. 

Executive Patronage and Removals from Office . . 347 

From a Speech delivered at the National Republican Convention, 
held at Worcester (Mass.), on the 12th of October, 1832. 



CONTENTS. vii 

Executive Usukpation 353 

From the same Speech at Worcester. 

The Natukal Hatred of the Poor to the Rich . . . 359 

From a Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 31st, 

1834, on "The Removal of the Deposits." 

A Redeemable Paper Currency 362 

From a Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 
2 2d of February, 183-4. 

The Presidential Protest 367 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 7th of 
May, 1834, on the subject of the President's Piotest against the 
Resolution of the Senate of the 28th of March. 

The Appointing and Removing Power 394 

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 1 Gth of February, 

1835, on the Passage of the Bill entitled " An Act to Re[)eal the 
First and Second Sections of the Act to limit the Term of Service 
of certain Officers therein named." 

On the Loss of the Fortification Bill in 1835 . . . 407 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 14th 
of January, 1836, on Mr. Benton's Resolutions for Appropriating 
the Surplus Revenue to National Defence. 

Reception at New York 422 

A Speech delivered at Niblo's Saloon, in New York, on the 15 th of 
March, 1837. 

Slavery in the District of Columbia 445 

Remarks made in the Senate of the United States, on the 10th of 
Jaimary, 1838, upon a Resolution moved by Mr. Clay as a Sub- 
stitute for the Resolution offered by Mr. Calhoun on the Subject of 
Slavery in the District of Columbia. 

The Credit System and the Labor of the United 

States 449 

From the Second Speech on the Sub-Treasury, delivered in the Seuate 
of the United States, on the 12th of March, la38. 



viii . CONTENTS. 

Remakks on the Political Course of Mr. Calhoun, in 

1838 453 

From the same Si)eech. 

Keply to Mr. Calhoun 458 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 22d of 
March, 1838, in Answer to Mr. Calhoun. 

A Uniform System of Bankruptcy 471 

From a Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 
18th of May, 1840, on the proposed Amendment to the Bill estab- 
lishing a Uniform System of Bankruptcy. 

" The Log Cabin Candidate " 476 

From a Speech delivered at the great Mass Meeting at Saratoga, New 
York, on the 12th of August, 1840. 

Address to the Ladies of Richmond 478 

Remarks at a Public Reception by the Ladies of Richmond, Virginia, 
on the 5th of October, 1840. 

Reception at Boston 481 

A Speech made in Faneuil Hall, on the 30th of September, 1842, at 
a Public Reception given to Mr. Webster, on his Return to Boston, 
after the Negotiation of the Treaty of Washington. 

The Landing at Plymouth 496 

A Speech delivered on the 22d of December, 1843, at the Public 
Dinner of the New England Society of New York, in Commemo- 
ration of the Landing of the Pilgrims. 

The Christian Ministry and the Religious Instruc- 
tion OF THE Young 505 

A Speech delivered in the Supreme Court at Washington, on the 
20th of February, 1844, in the Girard Will Case. 

Mr. Justice Story 532 

The Rhode Island Government 535 

An Argument made in the Supreme Court of the United States, on 
the 27th of January, 1848, in the Dorr Rebellion Cases. 

Objects of the Mexican War 551 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 23d of 
March, 1848, on the Bill from the House of Representatives for 
raising a Loan of Sixteen Millions of Dollars. 



CONTENTS. ix 

Exclusion of Slavery from the Territories .... 569 

Remarks made in the Senate of the United States, on the 12th of 
August, 1848. 

Speech at Marshfield 575 

Delivered at a Meeting of the Citizens of Marshfield, Mass., on the 
1st of September, 1848. 

Jeremiah INIason 589 

Kossuth 598 

From a Speech delivered in Boston, on the 7th of November, 1849, 
at a Festival of the Natives of New Hampshire established in 
Massachusetts. 

The Constitution and the Union 600 

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 7th of 
March, 1850. 

Reception at Buffaio 626 

A Speech delivered before a large Assembly of the Citizens of Buffalo 
and the County of Erie, at a Public Reception, on the 22d of May, 
1851. 

The Addition to the Capitol 639 

An Address delivered at the Laying of the Corner-Stone of the Addi- V 
tion to the Capitol, on the 4th of July, 1851. 



APPENDIX. 

Impress:ment 655 

The Right of Search 660 

Letters to General Cass on the Treaty of Wash- 
ington 666 

The HtJLSEMANN Letter 678 



DANIEL WEBSTER 

AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. 



FROM my own experience and observation I should say that every 
boy, who is ready enough in spelling, grammar, geography, and 
arithmetic, is appalled when he is commanded to write what is termed 
" a composition." When he enters college the same fear follows him ; 
and the Professor of Rhetoric is a more terrible personage to his imag- 
ination than the Professors of Greek, Latin, Mathematics, and Moral 
and Intellectual Philosophy. Both boys at school and young men 
in college show no lack of power in speaking their native language 
with a vehemence and fluency which almost stuns the ears of their 
seniors. Why, then, should they find such difficulty in writing it? 
When you hsten to the animated talk of a bright school-boy or college 
student, full of a subject which really interests him, you say at once 
that such command of racy and idiomatic English words must of 
course be exhibited in his '' compositions " or his " themes " ; but 
when the latter are examined, they are commonly found to be feeble 
and lifeless, with hardly a tliought or a word which bears any stamp of 
freshness or originality, and which are so inferior to his ordinary con- 
versation, that we can hardly believe they came from the same mind. 
The first quality which strikes an examiner of these exercises in 
English composition is their falseness. No boy or youth writes what 
he personally thinks and feels, but writes what a good boy or youth is 
expected to think or feel. This hypocrisy vitiates his Avriting from 
first to last, and is not absent in his " Class Oration," or in his 
" Speech at Commencement." I have a vivid memory of the first 
time the boys of my class, in a public school, were called ui)on to 
write " composition." The themes selected were the prominent moral 
virtues or vices. How we poor innocent urchins were tormented by 
the task imposed upon us ! How we put more ink on our liands and 
faces than we shed upon the white paper on our desks ! Our conclu- 
sions generally agreed with those announced by the greatest moralists 



xii DANIEL WEBSTER 

of tho worM. Socrates and Plato, Cicero and Seneca, Cudworth ai^ 
IJutler, could not have been more austerely moral than were we littl 
rr>^MU'.s, as we relieved the immense exertion involved in completing 
h\w^\v short baby-like sentence, by shying at one companion a rule 
or hurling at another a paper pellet intended to light plump on hij 
fori^hi-ad or nose. Our custom was to begin every composition witj 
the projjosition that such or such a virtue " was one of the greates 
blessings we enjoy "' ; and this triumph of accurate statement was no 
discovered by our teacher to be purely mechanical, until one juvenil 
thinker, having avarice to deal with, declared it to be " one of th( 
greatest evils we enjoy." The whole thing was such a piece o; 
monstrous hypocrisy, that I once timidly suggested to the school 
master that it would be well to allow me to select my own subject 
The re(piest was granted ; and, as narrative is the natural form of cons 
position which a boy adopts Avhen he has his own way, I filled, in les8 
than half the time heretofore consumed in writing a quarter of a page^< 
four pages of letter-paper with an account of my being in a ship taker 
by a pirate ; of the heroic defiance I launched at the pirate captain 
jmd the sagacity I evinced in escaping the fate of my fellow-passen- 
gers, in not being ordered to " walk the plank." The story, thoug 
trashy enough, was so much better than any of the moral essays oi 
the other pupils, that the teacher commanded me to read it before the 
whole school, as an evidence of the rapid strides I had made in the art 
of *' composition." 

This falseness of thought and feeling is but too apt to characterize 
tlu! writing of the student, after he has passed from the common 
school to the academy or the college. The term " Sophomorical " is 
used to describe spcieches which are full of emotion which the speaker 
does not feel, full of words in four or five syllables that mean nothing, 
and. ill respect to imagery and illustrations, blazing with the cheap 
jewelry of rhetoric, — with those rubies and diamonds that can be pur- 
chasi'd for a few pennies an ounce. The danger is that this "Soph- 
omorical " style may continue to afflict the student after he has be- 
come a clergyman, a lawyer, or a legislator. 

l'raeti»-al men wlio may not be "college educated" still have the 
great virtue <if using the few words they employ as identical with facts. 
When they meet a man who has half the dictionary at his disposal, 
and yet gives no evidence of apprehending the real import and mean- 
ing of one word among the many thousands he glibly pours forth, 
they naturally distrust him, as a person who does not know the vital 
connection of all good words with the real things they represent. 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xiii 

Indeed, the best rule that a Professor of Rhetoric could adopt would 
be to Insist that no student under his care should use an unusual 
word until he had earned the right to use it by making it the verbal 
sign of some new advance in his thinking, in his acquirements, or in 
his feelings. Shakspeare, the greatest of English writers, and per- 
haps the greatest of all writers, required fifteen thousand words to 
embody all tliat his vast exceptional intelligence acquired, thought, 
imagined, and discovered ; and he had earned tlie right to use every 
one of them. JMilton found that eight thousand words could fairly 
and fully represent all the power, grandeur, and creativeness of his 
almost seraphic soul, when he attempted to express his whole nature 
in a literary form. All the words used by Shakspeare and Milton 
are alive ; " cut them and they will bleeclT But it is ridiculous for a 
college student to claim that he has the mighty resources of the Eng- 
lish language at his supreme disposal, when he has not verified, by his 
own thought, knowledge, and experience, one in a hundred of the 
words he presumptuously employs. 

Now Daniel Webster passed safely through all the stages of the 
" Sophomoric " disease of the mind, as he passed safely through the 
measles, the chicken-pox, and other eruptive maladies incident to 
childhood and youth. The process, however, by which he purified liis 
style from this taint, and made his diction at last as robust and as 
manly, as simple and as majestic, as the nature it expressed, will 
reward a little study. 

The mature style of Webster is perfect of its kind, being in words 
the express image of his mind and character, — plain, terse, clear, 
forcible ; and rising from the level of lucid statement and argument 
into passages of superlative eloquence only when his whole nature is 
stirred by some grand sentiment of freedom, patriotism, justice, 
humanity, or religion, which absolutely lifts him, by its own inherent 
force and inspiration, to a region above that in which his mind habit- 
ually lives and moves. At the same time it will be observed that 
these thrilling passages, which the boys of two generations have ever 
been delighted to declaim in their shrillest tones, are strictly illustra- 
tive of the main purpose of the speech in which they appear. They 
are not mere purple patches of rlietoric, loosely stitched on the home- 
spun gray of the reasoning, but they seem to be inwoven with it and 
to be a vital part of it. Indeed we can hardly decide, in reading 
these magnificent bursts of eloquence in connection with what precedes 
and follows them, whether the effect is due to the logic of the orator 
becoming suddenly morally impassioned, or to his moral passion 



3siv DANIEL WEBSTER 

Viocoming siuldonly lo^'ical. What gave Webster his immense influ- 
ence over the opinions of the people of New England was, first, his 
powiT of so "putting things" that everybody could understand his 
»tatomont.s ; secondly, his power of so framing his arguments that 
all tin* .Htops, from one point to another, in a logical series, could be 
clearly appndicnded by every iutolligent farmer or mechanic who 
had II thoughtful interest in the affairs of the country ; and thirdly, 
his jMuvrr of inllaniing the sentiment of patriotism in all honest and 
well-intcntioiUHl men by overwhelming appeals to that sentiment, so 
tliat, after convincing their understandings, he clinched the matter 
by »\vc«?ping away their wills. 

PtMJiaps to these sources of influence may be added another which 
many eminent statesmen have lacked. With all his great superiority^ 
to average men in force and breadth of mind, he had a genuine respect 
for tlic intellect, as well as for the manhood, of average men. He 
dis«lain«Ml the ignoble office of misleading the voters he aimed to 
instruct; and the farmers and mechanics Avho read his speeches feltg 
eimobh'd when they found that the greatest statesman of the country] 
frankly addressed them, as man to man, without pluming himself on hi 
exceptional talents and accomplishments. Up to the crisis of 1850, h 
succeeded in domesticating himself at most of the pious, moral, and in 
telligent firesides of New England. Through his speeches he seemed t 
\h' ahnost bodily present wherever the family, gathered in the evening^. 
aroiin.l the blazing hearth, discussed the questions of the day. It was 
not the great Mi-. Webster, "the godlike Daniel," who had a seat by 
the fire. It was a person who talked to them, and argued tvith them, as 
though he was "one of the folks," — a neighbor dropping in to maki 
an evening call ; there was not the slightest trace of assumption in his 
njunner ; hut suddeidy, after the discussion had become a little tire 
jw>me, certain fiery words would leap from his lips and make the whok 
household spring to their feet, ready to sacrifice life and property for 
" the Constitution and the Union." That Webster was thus a kind 
of invisihje presence in thousands of homes where his face was neve 
seeu. .shows that his rhetoric had caught an element of power from hi 
early ree..lleetion3 of the independent, hard-headed farmers whom h 
met when :i boy in his father's house. The bodies of these* men ha. 
hecnxuo tough and strong in their constant struggle to force scant 
lmrve.st« from an unfruitf.d soil, which only persistent toil could com^ 
pi to yield any thing; and their brains, though forcible and clear 
were 5t.ll not stored with the important facts and principles which i 
was l„s delight to state and expound. In truth, he ran a race wit 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XV 

the demagogues of his time in an attempt to capture such men as 
these, thinking them the very backbone of the country. Whether he 
succeeded or failed, it would be vain to hunt through his works to find 
a single epithet in which he mentioned them with contempt. He was 
as incapable of insulting one member of this landed democracy, — 
sterile as most of their acres were, — as of insulting the memory of 
his father, who belonged to this class. 

The late Mr. Peter Harvey used to tell with much zest a story 
illustrating the hold which these early associations retained on Web- 
ster's mind throucrhout his life. Some months after his removal from 
Portsmouth to Boston, a servant knocked at his chamber door late in 
an April afternoon in the year 1817, with the announcement that 
thi'ee men were in the drawing-room who insisted on seeing him. Web- 
ster was overwhelmed with fatigue, the result of his Congressional 
labors and his attendance on courts of law ; and he had determined, 
after a night's sleep, to steal a vacation in order to recruit his ener- 
gies by a fortnight's fishing and hunting. He suspected that the 
persons below were expectant clients ; and he resolved, in descending 
the stairs, not to accept their offer. He found in the parlor three 
plain, country-bred, honest-looking men, who were believers in the 
innocence of Levi and Laban Kenniston, accused of robbing a certain 
Major Goodridge on the highway, and whose trial would take place at 
Ipswich the next day. They could find, they said, no member of the 
Essex bar who would undertake the defence of the Kennistons, and 
they had come to Boston to engage the services of Mr. Webster. 
Would he go down to Ipswich and defend the accused? Mr. Webster 
stated that he could not and would not go. He had made arrange- 
ments for an excursion to the sea-side ; the state of his health abso- 
lutely demanded a short withdrawal from all business cares ; and that 
no fee could tempt him to abandon his purpose. " Well," was the 
reply of one of the delegation, " it isn't the fee that we think of at all, 
though we are willing to pay what you may charge ; but it's justice. 
Here ai'e two New Hampshire men who are believed in Exeter, and 
Newbury, and Newburyport, and Salem to be rascals ; but we in New- 
market believe, in spite of all evidence against them, that they are tlie 
victims o'f some conspiracy. We think you are the man to unravel 
it, though it seems a good deal tangled even to us. Still we suppose 
that men whom we know to have been honest all their lives can't 
have become such desperate rogues all of a sudden." " But I cannot 
take the case," persisted Mr. Webster ; " I am worn to death with 
over-work; I have not had any real sleep for forty-eight hours. 



jjvi D.\JN'IEL WEBSTER 



ik'si.io.s, I know nothing of the case." " It's hard, I can see," con- 
tiniUHl tlie Ivinh'T of the delegation; "but you're a New Hampshire 
man, and the iwiijhbors thought that you would not allow two innocent 
New Hampshire men, however humble they may be in their circum- 
stances, to suffer for lack of your skill in exposing the wiles of this 
scoundrel Goodridge. The neighbors all desire you to take the case." 
That phrase " tlie neiglibors " settled the question. No resident of a 
citv knows what the phrase means. But Webster knew it in all the 
intense significance of its meaning. His imagination flew back to the 
scattered liomesteads of a New England village, where mutual sympa- 
thy and assistance are the necessities, as they are the commonplaces, 
of village life. The phrase remotely meant to him the combination 
of neiglibors to resist an assault of Indian savages, or to send volun- 
teers to the war which wrought the independence of the nation. It 
8jK?cially meant to him the help of neighbor to neighbor, in times of 
sickness, distress, sorrow, and calamity. In his childhood and boy- 
hood the Christian question, "Who is my neighbor?" was instantly 
solved the moment a matron in good health heard that the wife of 
Farmer A, or Farmer B, was stricken down by fever, and needed a 
friendly nurse to sit by her bedside all night, though she had herself 
been toiling hard all day. Eveiy thing philanthropists mean when they 
U\\k of brotherhood and sisterhood among men and women was con- 
densed in that homely phrase, " the neighbors." " Oh ! " said Web- 
ster, ruefully, "if the neighbors think I may be of service, of course 
I must go " ; — and, with his three companions, he was soon seated in 
the stage for Ipswich, where he arrived at about midnight. The court 
met the next morning ; and his management of the case is still con- 
sidered one of his miisterpieces of legal acumen and eloquence. His 
cross-examination of Goodridge rivalled, in mental torture, every thing 
nuirtyrologists tell us of the physical agony endured by the victim of 
thf in(|uisitor, when roasted before slow fires or stretched upon the rack. 
Still it seemed impossible to assign any motive for the self-robbery 
und the self-maiming of Goodridge, which any judge or jury would 
accept as reiwonable. The real motive has never been discovered. 
WebsUT argued that the motive might have originated in a desire 
to escape from the payment of his debts, or in a whimsical ambition 
to hav.3 his name sounded all over Maine and Massachusetts as the 
heroic tradesman who had parted with his money only when over- < 
powered by superior force. It is impossible to say what motives may 
impel men who are half-crazed by vaiiity, or half-demonized by malice. 
Coleridge describes lago's hatred of Othello as the hatred which a 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XVU 

base nature instinctively feels for a noble one, and his assignment of 
motives for his acts as the mere "motive-hunting of a motiveless 
malignity." 

Whatever may have been Goodridge's motive in his attempt to ruin 
the innocent men he falsely accused, it is certain that Webster saved 
these men from the unjust punishment of an imputed crime. Only 
the skeleton of his argument before the jury has been preserved ; but 
what we have of it evidently passed under his revision. He knew 
that the plot of Goodridge had been so cunningly contrived, that every 
man of tlie twelve before him, whose verdict was to determine the 
fate of his clients, was inwardly persuaded of their guilt. Some small 
marked portions of the money which Goodridge swore he had on his 
person on the night of the pretended robbery were found in their house. 
Circumstantial evidence brought their guilt with a seemingly irre- 
sistible force literally " home " to them. It was the conviction of the 
leaders of the Essex bar that no respectable lawyer could appear in 
their defence without becoming, in some degree, their accomplice. 
But Webster, after damaging the character of the prosecutor by his 
stern cross-examination, addressed the jury, not as an advocate bear- 
ino- down upon them with his arguments and appeals, but rather as a 
thirteenth juryman, who had cosily introduced himself into their com- 
pany, and was arguing the case with them after they had retired for 
consultation among themselves. The simplicity of the language em- 
ployed is not more notable than the power evinced in seizing the 
main points on which the question of guilt or innocence turned. At 
every quiet but deadly stab aimed at the theory of the prosecution, he 
is careful to remark, that " it is for the jury to say under their oaths " 
whether such inconsistencies or improbabilities should have any effect 
on their minds. Every strong argument closes with the ever-recurring 
phrase, "It is for the jury to say"; and, at the end, the jury, thor- 
oughly convinced, said, " Not guilty." The Kennistons were vindi- 
cated ; and the public, which had been almost unanimous in declaring 
them fit tenants for the State prison, soon blamed the infatuation 
which had made them the accomplices of a villain in hunting down 
two unoffending citizens, and of denouncing every lawyer who should 
undertake their defence as a legal rogue. 

The detected scoundrel fled from the place where his rascality had 
been exposed, to seek some other locality, where the mingled jeers and 
curses of his dupes would be unheard. Some twenty years after the 
trial, Mr. Webster, while travelHng in Western New York, stopped at 
an obscure village tavern to get a glass of water. The hand of the 

b 



xviii DANIEL WEBSTER 

mail bchin.l tho bar, who gave it to him, trembled violently; and 
VVf'hskT, woiiflcring at the cause, looked the fellow steadily in the eye. 
lie rt'C'ogni/ed (Jooch-idi^o, and understood at once that Goodridge had 
just hefori' recognized him. Not a word passed between the felon and 
the intrepid advocate who had stripped his villany of all its plausible 
disguises ; but what immense meaning must there have been in the 
Kwift interchange of feeling as their eyes met! Mr. Webster entered 
his carriage and proceeded on his journey ; but Goodridge, — who has 
»inco ever heard of ium? 

This story is a slight digression, but it illustrates that hold on 
reality, that truth to fact, which was one of the soui'ces of the force 
and simplicity of Mr. Webster's mature style. He, however, only 
obtained these good qualities of I'hetoric by long struggles with con- 
stant temptations, in his early life, to use resounding expressions and 
flaring images which he had not earned the right to use. His Fourth 
of July oration at Hanover, when he was only eighteen, and his college 
achh-es.ses, must have been very bad in their diction if we can judge of 
them l>y the style of his private correspondence at the time. The 
verses lie incorporates in his letters are deformed by all the faults of 
false thinking and borrowed expression which characterized contem- 
porary American imitators of English imitators of Pope and Gray. 
Think of the future orator, lawyer, and senator writing, even at the 
age of twenty, such balderdash as this I 

•' And Heaven grant me, whatever luck betide, 
He fame or fortune given or denied, 
Some cordial friend to meet my warm desire, 
Honest as John and good as Nehemiah." 

In reading such couplets we are reminded of the noted local poet of 
Now Hampshire (or was it Maine?) who wrote "The Shepherd's 
Songs," and some of whose rustic lines still linger in the memory to 
be laughed at, such, for instance, as these : — 



Or these : — 



" Tliis child who perished in the fire, — 
His father's name was Nehemiah." 

" Napoleon, that great ext/p, 
Who scoured all Europe like a file." 



And Webster's prose was then almost as bad as his verse, though it 
wuH mo,lelhM on what was considered fine writing at the opening of 
the present century. He writes to his dearest student friends in a 
Htyle wh.eh is profoundly insincere, though the thoughts are often 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XtX 

good, and the fact of his love for his friends cannot be doubted. He 
had committed to memory Fisher Ames's noble speech on the British 
Treaty, and had probably read some of Burke's great pamphlets on the 
French Revolution. The stripling statesman aimed to talk in their 
high tone and in their richly ornamented language, before he had 
earned the right even to mimic their style of expression. There is a 
certain swell in some of his long sentences, and a kind of good sense 
in some of his short ones, which suggest that the writer is a youth 
endowed with elevation as well as strength of nature, and is only 
makins: a fool of himself because he thinks he must make a fool of 
himself in order that he may impress his correspondents with the idea 
that he is a master of the horrible jargon which all bright young 
fellows at that time innocently supposed to constitute eloquence. 
Thus, in February, 1800, he writes thus to his friend Bingham : " In 
my melancholy moments I presage the most dire calamities. I 
already see in my imagination the time when the banner of civil war 
shall be unfurled ; when Discord's hydra form shall set up her hideous 
yell, and from her hundred mouths shall howl destruction through our 
empire ; and when American blood shall be made to flow in rivers by 
American swords! But propitious Heaven prevent such dreadful 
calamities ! Internally secure, we have nothing to fear. Let Europe 
pour her embattled millions around us, let her thronged cohorts cover 
our shores, from St. Lawrence to St. Marie's, yet United Columbia 
shall stand unmoved ; the manes of her deceased Washington sliall 
guard the liberties of his country, and direct the sword of freedom in 
the day of battle." And think of this, not in a Fourth of July ora- 
tion, but in a private letter to an intimate acquaintance ! The bones 
of Daniel Webster might be supposed to have moved in their coffin at 
the thought that this miserable trash — so regretted and so amply 
atoned for — should have ever seen the light; but it is from such 
youthful follies that we measure the vigor of the man who outgrows 
them. 

It was fortunate that Webster, after he was admitted to the bar, 
came into constant collision, in the courts of New Hampshire, with one 
of the greatest masters of the common law that the country has ever 
produced, Jeremiah Mason. It has been said that Mr. Mason educated 
Webster into a lawyer by opposing him. He did more than this ; he 
cured Webster of all the florid foolery of his early rhetorical style. 
Of all men that ever appeared before a jury, Mason was the most 
pitiless realist, the most terrible enemy of what is — in a slang term 
as vile almost as itself — called " Hifalutin"; and woe to the opposing 



jjx DANIEL WEBSTER 

l;i\vvor wlio in(liil<,'.Ml in it! He relentlessly pricked all rhetorical 
hub'bU-H, ri-.liu-iu},' thcMu :iL once to the small amount of ignominious 
«ii(ls, whiili the orator's breath had converted into colored globes, 
luivin^' Koine appearance of stability as well as splendor. Six feet and 
wv.-n inchfs high, an»l corpulent in proportion, this inexorable repre- 
WMitative of good sense and sound law stood, while he was arguing a 
coMu '• ijuitc near to the jury," says Webster, — " so near that he might 
h:i\ r laid his finger on the foreman's nose ; and then he talked to them 
in a plain conversational way, in short sentences, and using no word 
that was not level to the comprehension of the least educated man on 
the panel. This led me," he adds, "■ to examine my own style, and 
I het al>out reforming it altogether." 

.Mr. Mason was wiiat the lawyers call a "cause-getting man," like 
Sir James Scarlett, Brougham's great opponent at the English bar. It 
was said of Scarlett, that he gained his verdicts because there were 
twelve Scarletts in the jury-box ; and Mason so contrived to blend his 
Btronger mind with the minds of the jurymen, that his thoughts 
appeared to be theirs, expressed in the same simple words and quaint 
ilhistrations which they would have used if asked to give their opin- 
ions on the case. It is to be added, that Mason's almost cynical dis- 
regard of ornament in his addresses to the jury gave to an opponent 
like Webster the advantage of availing himself of those real orna- 
ments of - speech w hich spring directly from a great heart and 
imagination. Webster, without ever becoming so supremely plain 
and simple in style as Mason, still strove to emulate, in his legal 
8taleinents ;iih1 arguments, the homely, robust common-sense of his 
antagonist; but, wherever the case allowed of it, he brought into 
the discussion an element of wn-common sense, the gift of his own 
genius and imlividuality, which Mason could hardly comprehend 
Huflleiently to controvert, but which was surely not without its effect 
in deciding the verdicts of juries. 

It is probubh; that Webster was one of the iew lawyers and statesmen 
that Miisoii respected. Mason's curt, sharp, "vitriolic " sarcasms on 
many men who enjoyed a national reputation, and who were popularly 
considered the lights of their time, still remain in the memories of his 
Hurviving associates, as things which may be quoted in conversation, 
but whieh it would be cruel to put into print. Of Webster, however, 
h'- never seems to have spoken a contemptuous word. Indeed, Mason, 
though fc.iute.-n years older than Webster, and fighting him at the 
rorUsMioulh bar with all the formidable force of his logic and learning, 
was frouj the first his cordial friend. That friendship, early estab- 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xxi 

lished between strong natures so opposite in character, was never dis- 
turbed by any collision in the courts. In a letter written, I think, a 
few weeks after he had made that " Reply to Hayne " which is con- 
ceded to be one of the great masterpieces of eloquence in the recorded 
oratory of the Avorld, Webster wrote jocularly to Mason : " I have 
been written to, to go to New Hampshire, to try a cause against you 
next August. ... If it were an easy and plain case on our side, I 
might be willing to go ; but I have some of your pounding in my 
hones yet^ and I don't care about any more till that Avears out." 

It may be said that Webster's argument in the celebrated " Dart- 
mouth College Case," before the Supreme Court of the United States, 
placed him, at the age of thirty-six, in the foremost rank of the con- 
stitutional lawyers of the country. For the main points of the reason- 
ing, and for the exhaustive citation of authorities by which the 
reasoning was sustained, he was probably indebted to Mason, who had 
previously argued the case before the Superior Court of New Hamp- 
shire ; but his superiority to Mason was shown in the eloquence, the 
moral power, he infused into his reasoning, so as to make the dullest 
citation of legal authority tell on the minds he addressed. 

There is one incident connected with this speech which proves what 
immense force is given to simple words when a great man — great in 
his emotional nature as well as great in logical power — is behind the 
words. " It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there 
are those who love it." At this point the orator's lips quivered, his 
voice choked, his eyes filled with tears, — all the memories of sacrifices 
endured by his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, in order 
that he might enjoy its rather scanty advantages of a liberal educa- 
tion, and by means of which he was there to plead its cause before the 
supreme tribunal of the nation, rushed suddenly upon his mind in 
an overwhelming flood. The justices of the Supreme Court — great 
lawyers, tried and toughened by experience into a certain obdurate 
sense of justice, and insensible to any common appeal to their hearts 
— melted into unwonted tenderness, as, in broken words, the advocate 
proceeded to state his own indebtedness to the " small college," whose 
rights and privileges he was there to defend. Chief Justice Marshall's 
eyes were filled with tears ; and the eyes of the other justices were 
suffused with a moistui'e similar to that which afflicted the eyes of 
the Chief. As the orator gradually recovered his accustomed stern 
composure of manner, he turned to the counsel on the other side, — 
one of whom, at least, was a graduate of Dartmouth, — and in his 
deepest and most thrilling tones, thus concluded his argument : " Sir, 



^^ii DANIEL WEBSTER 

I know not Ijow others may feel ; but for myself, when I see my 
Ahna Mat.'r «tiiToumled, like Caesar in the senate-house, by those who 
HP.' n-itiM-atiiiK stab after stab, I would not, for this right hand, have 
h.-r turn to me and say, Et tu quoqtie, mi fill / — And thou too, my son." 
Tho ••iT.'ct was overwhelming ; yet by what simple means was it pro- 
•liicMJ. and with what small expenditure of words ! The eloquence 
WAA i)laiidy " in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion," but most 
t'inphalically was it in the Man. 

\Vcbster'8 extreme solicitude to make his style thoroughly Weh- 
Htirinn — a style unimitated because it is in itself inimitable — is 
observable in tlie care he took in revising all his speeches and 
uddrosses which were published under his own authority. His great 
rivmouth oration of 1820 did not appear in a pamphlet form until a 
year after its delivery. The chief reason of this delay was probably 
due to his desire of stating the main political idea of the oration, that 
govornmont is founded on property, so clearly that it could not be 
misconceived by any honest mind, and could only be perverted from 
iUs plain democratic meaning by the ingenious malignity of such minds 
nn are deliberately dishonest, and consider lying as justifiable when 
lying will serve a party purpose. It is probable that Webster would 
liave been President of the United States had it not been for one 
Hhort sentence in this oration, — "Government is founded on prop- 
erty." It was of no use for his political friends to prove that he 
founded on this general proposition the most democratic views as to 
the distril)ution of property, and advised the enactment of laws calcu- 
lated to frustrate the accumulation of large fortunes in a few hands. 
There wert^ the words, words horrible to the democratic imagination, 
and Webster was proclaimed an aristocrat, and an enemy to the common 
people. Hut th(? delay in the publication of the oration may also be 
supposed to have been due to his desire to prune all its grand passages 
of elofjiieiice of every epithet and image which should not be rigor- 
ously exact as expressions of his genuine sentiments and principles. 
It is probable that the Plymouth oration, as we possess it in print, is 
H belter oration, in respect to composition, than that which was heard 
by the applauding crowd before which it was originally delivered. 
It is certain that tlu^ largeness, the grandeur, the weight of Webster's 
whole nature, were first made manifest to the intelligent portion 
of his countrymen by this noble commemorative address. 

Yet it is also certain that he was not himself altogether satisfied 
with this oration; and his dissatisfaction with some succeeding pop- 
ular speeches, memorable in the annals of American eloquence, was 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xxiii 

expressed privatel}'^ to his friends in the most empliatic terms. On the 
day he completed his magnificent Bunker Hill oration, delivered on 
the ITth of June, 1825, he wrote to Mr. George Ticknor : " I did 
the deed this morning, i. e. I finished my speech ; and I am pretty 
well persuaded that it will finish me as far as reputation is concerned. 
There is no more tone in it than in the weather in which it has been 
written ; it is perpetual dissolution and thaw." Every critic will 
understand the force of that word " tone." He seemed to feel that it 
had not enough robust manliness, — that the ribs and backbone, the 
facts, thoughts, and real substance of the address, were not sufficiently 
prominent, owing to the frequency of those outbursts of magnetic elo- 
quence, which made the immense audience that listened to it half 
crazy with the vehemence of their applause. On the morning after 
he had delivered his eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, he entered his 
office with his manuscript in his hand, and threw it down on the desk 
of a young student at law whom he specially esteemed, with the 
request, " There, Tom, please to take that discourse, and weed cut all 
the Latin words." 

Webster's liking for the Saxon element of our composite language 
was, however, subordinate to his main purpose of self-expression. 
Every word was good, whether of Saxon or Latin derivation, which 
aided him to embody the mood of mind dominant at the time he was 
speaking or writing. No man had less of what has been called " the 
ceremonial cleanliness of academical pharisees ; " and the purity of 
expression he aimed at was to put into a form, at once intelligible and 
tasteful, his exact thoughts and emotions. He tormented reporters, 
proof-readers, and the printers who had the misfortune to be engaged 
in putting one of his performances into type, not because this or that 
word was or was not Saxon or Latin, but because it was inadequate to 
convey perfectly his meaning. Mr. Kemble, a great Anglo-Saxon 
scholar, once, in a company of educated gentlemen, defied anybody 
present to mention a single Latin phrase in our language for which 
he could not furnish a more forcible Saxon equivalent. " The impen- 
etrability of matter " was suggested ; and Kemble, after half a minute's 
reflection, answered, " The un-thorough-fareableness of stuff." Still, 
no English writer would think of discarding such an abstract, but 
convenient and accurate, term as " impenetrability," for the coarsely 
concrete and terribly ponderous word which declares that there is 
no possible thoroughfare, no road, by which we can penetrate that 
substance which we call " matter," and which our Saxon forefathers 
called " stuff." Wherever the Latin element in our language comes 



xxiv DANIEL WEBSTER 

ill to expi-ow idoas and sentiments which were absent from the Anglo 
Snx(»n mind, Wrbstcr uses it without stint; and some of the most 
rr«<)undin^' imssj^os of his eloquence owe to it their strange power to 
Buppost a ctTtaiii vastncss in his intellect and sensibility, which the 
quaint, idiomatic, homely prose of his friend, Mason, would have been 
utterly im-(impetctit to convey. Still, he preferred a plain, plump, 
Bimpie verb or noun to any learned phrase, whenever he could employ 
it \vith(»ut limiting his opulent nature to a meagre vocabulary, in- 
competent fully to express it. 

Yet ho never departed from simplicity ; that is, he rigidly confined 
himsflf to tlie use of such words as he had earned the right to use. 
Whenever the report of one of his extemporaneous speeches came 
before liim for revision, he had an instinctive sagacity in detecting 
ov«»rv word that had slipped unguardedly from his tongue, which he 
felt, on reflection, did not belong to him. Among the reporters of 
hit) speeches, he had a particular esteem for Henry J. Raymond, after- 
wards 80 well known as the editor of the New York Times. Mr. 
Raymond told me that, after he had made a report of one of Webster's 
«|Kvches, and had presented it to him for revision, his conversation 
with him was always a lesson in rhetoric. "Did I use that phrase? I 
hofx* not. At any rate, substitute for it this more accurate definition." 
AikI then again: " That word does not express my meaning. Wait 
a moment, and I will give you a better one. That sentence is slovenly, 
— that image is imperfect and confused. I believe, my young friend, 
that you liave a remarkal)le pow'er of reporting what I say; but, if 
I Haid that, and that, and that, it must have been owing to the fact 
that I caught, in the hurry of the moment, such expressions as I could 
command at tiie moment ; and you see they do not accurately represent 
the i«lea that was in my mind." And thus, Mr. Ravmond said, the 
orator'H criticism upon his own speech would go on, — correction fol- 
l<»wing correction, — until the reporter feared he would not have it 
n-aily for the morning edition of his journal. 

Webster had so much confidence in Raymond's power of reporting 
hiin accurately, that, when he intended to make an important speech 
in the Senate, he would send a note to him, asking him to come to 
\Va.shingt«.n as a personal favor; for he knew that the accomplished 
cilitor ha<I a rare power of apprehending a long train of reasoning, 
and of HO reporting it that the separate thoughts would not only be 
oxnctly stated, hut the relations of the thoughts to each other — a 
much more difliciijt task— would be preserved throughout, and that 
the argument wouhl be presented in the symmetrical form in which 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xxv 

it existed in the speaker's mind. Then would follow, as of old, the 
severe scrutiny of the phraseology of the speech ; and Webster would 
give, as of old, a new lesson in rhetoric to the accomplished reporter 
who was so capable of following the processes of his mind. 

The great difficulty with speakers who may be sufficiently clear in 
statement and cogent in argument is that turn in their discourse when 
their language labors to become figurative. Imagery makes palpable 
to the bodily eye the abstract thought seen only by the eye of the 
mind ; and all orators aim at giving vividness to their thinking by thus 
making their thoughts visible. The investigation of the process of 
imagination by which this end is reached is an interesting study. Woe 
to the speaker w^ho is ambitious to rise into the region of imagination 
without possessing the faculty ! Everybody remembers the remark of 
Sheridan, when Tierney, the prosaic Whig leader of the English House 
of Commons, ventured to bring in, as an illustration of his argument, 
the fabulous but favorite bird of untrained orators, the phoenix, 
which is supposed always to spring up alive out of its own ashes. 
" It was," said Sheridan, " a poulterer's description of a phoenix." 
That is, Tierney, from defect of imagination, could not lift his poetic 
bird above the rank of a common hen or chicken. 

The test that may be most easily applied to all efforts of the im- 
agination is sincerity ; for, like other qualities of the mind, it acts 
strictly within the limits of a man's character and experience. The 
meaning of the word " experience," however, must not be confined to 
what he has personally seen and felt, but is also to be extended to 
every thing he has seen and felt through vital sympathy with facts, 
scenes, events, and characters, which he has learned by conversation 
with other men and through books. Webster laid great emphasis on 
conversation as one of the most important sources of imagery as well 
as of positive knowledge. " In my education," he once remarked to 
Charles Sumner, " I have found that conversation with the intelli- 
gent men I have had the good fortune to meet has done more for me 
than books ever did ; for I learn more from them in a talk of half an 
hour than I could possibly learn from their books. Their minds, in 
conversation, come into intimate contact with my own mind ; and I 
absorb certain secrets of their power, whatever may be its quality, 
which I could not have detected in their works. Converse, con- 
verse, CONVERSE with living men, face to face, and mind to mind, — 
that is one of the best sources of knowledge." 

But my present object is simply to give what may be called the 
natural histoi'y of metaphor, comparison, image, trope, and the like, 



XXVI 



DANIEL WEBSTER 



whetlier imagery be employed by an uneducated husbandman, or by 
a great orator and writer. Many readers may recollect the anecdote 
of the New Hampshire farmer, who was once complimented on the 
extremely liand.some appearance of a horse which he was somewhat 
sullenly urging on to perform its work. " Yaas," was the churlish 
reply ; ''the critter looks well enough, but then he is as slow as — as 

aa ^voll, as slow as cold molasses." This perfectly answers to 

Bacon's definition of imagination, as "thought immersed in matter." 
The comparison is exactly on a level with the experience of the per- 
son who used it. He had seen his good wife, on so many bitter winter 
niornin<'s, when he was eager for his breakfast, turn the molasses-jug 
uj).side down, and had noted so often the reluctance of the congealed 
sweetness to assume its liquid nature, that the thing had become to 
him the visible image of the abstract notion of slowness of movement. 
An imaginative dramatist or novelist, priding himself on the exactness 
with which he represented character, could not have invented a more 
appropriate comparison to be put into the mouth of an imagined New 
England farmer. 

The only objection to such rustic poets is, that a comparatively few 
images serve them for a lifetime ; and one tires of such "oi'iginals" 
after a few days' conversation has shown the extremely limited num- 
ber of apt illustrations they have added to the homely poetry of 
agricultural life. The only person, belonging to this class, that I ever 
met, who possessed an imagination which was continually creative in 
quaint images, was a farmer by the name of Knowlton, who had spent 
iifty years in forcing some few acres of the rocky soil of Cape Ann to 
produce grass, oats, potatoes, and, it may be added, those ugly stone 
walls which carefully distinguish, at the cape, one patch of miserable 
sterile land from another. He was equal, in quickness of imaginative 
illustration, to the whole crowd of clergymen, lawyers, poets, and 
artists, who filled the boarding-houses of " Pigeon Cove"; and he was 
absolutely inexhaustible in fresh and original imagery. On one hot 
summer day, the continuation of fourteen hot summer days, when 
ther«; was fear all over Cape Ann that the usual scanty crops would be 
withered up by the intense heat, and the prayer for rain was in almost 
every farmer's heart, I met Mr. Knowlton, as he was looking philo- 
sophi.-ally over one of his own sun-smitten fields of grass. Thinking 
that I was in full sympathy with his own feeling at the dolorous pros- 
pect before his eyes, I said, in accosting him, that it was bad weather 
f..r the farmers. He paused for half a minute; and then his mind 
Hashed back on an incident of his weekly experience, — that of his 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE.. xxvii 

■wife " ironing" the somewhat damp clothes of the Monday's " wash- 
ing," — and he replied: "I see you've been talking with our farmers, 
who are too stupid to know what's for their good. Ye see the spring 
here was uncommonly rainy, and the ground became wet and cold ; 
but now, for the last fortnight, Ciod has been putting his flat-iron over 
it, and 'twill all come out right in the end." 

Thus Mr. Knowlton went on, year after year, speaking poetry 
without knowing it, as Moli^re's Monsieur Jourdain found he had 
been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. But the concep- 
tion of the sun as God's flat-iron, smoothing out and warming the 
moist earth, as a housewife smooths and warms the yet damp shirts, 
stockings, and bed-linen brought into the house from the clothes-lines 
in the yard, is an astounding illustration of that "familiar grasp of 
things divine," Avliich obtains in so many of our rustic households. 
Dante or Chaucer, two of the greatest poets of the world, would, had 
they happened to be " uneducated " men, have seized on just such an 
image to express their idea of the Divine beneficence. 

This natural, this instinctive operation of the imaginative faculty, 
is often observed in children. Numberless are the stories told by fond 
mothers of the wonderful things uttered by their babies, shortly after 
they have left their cradles. The most striking peculiarity running 
through them all is the astonishing audacity with which the child 
treats the most sacred things. He or she seems to have no sense of 
awe. All children are taught to believe that God resides above them 
in the sky ; and I shall never forget the shock of surprise I felt at the 
answer of a boy of five years — whom I found glorying over the 
treasures of his first paint-box — to my question: "Which color do 
you like best? " " Oh," he carelessly replied, "I like best sky-blue, 
— God's color." And the little rogue went on, daubing the paper 
before him with a mixture of all colors, utterly unconscious that he had 
said any thing remarkable ; and yet what Mrs. Bx'owning specially 
distinguishes as the characteristic of the first and one of the greatest 
of English poets, Chaucer, namely, his " familiar grasp of things 
Divine," could not have found a more appi'opriate illustration than in 
this chance remark of a mere child, expressing the fearlessness of his 
faith in the Almighty Father above him. 

Now in all these instinctive operations of the imagination, whether 
in the mind of a child or in that of a grown man, it is easy to discern 
the mark of sincerity. If the child is petted, and urged by his motlier 
to display his brightness before a company of other mothers and other 
babies, he is in danger of learning early that trick of falsehood, which 



XXVIIl 



DANIEL WEBSTER 



(•lint,'s t(. liim wlion he poes to school, when he leaves the school for 
tlie colle{,'e, and when he leaves the college for the pursuits of profes- 
Hional lif«'. The farmer or mechanic, not endowed with "college 
htrniii'," is sure to become a bad declaimer, perhaps a demagogue, 
wlu-n hf al»aiulons those natural illustrations and ornaments of his 
H|M'ccli which spring from his individual experience, and strives to 
eiiiuhite the grandiloquence of those graduates of colleges who have 
the heathen mythology at the ends of their fingers and tongues, and 
<-an refer to Jove, Juno, Minerva, Diana, Venus, Vulcan, and Neptune, 
JUS though they were resident deities and deesses of the college halls. 
Thf troiibk' with most "uneducated" orators is, that they become 
I'namored of these shining gods and goddesses, after they have lost, 
through repetition, all of their old power to give point or force to any 
piKxl sentence of modern oratory. During the times when, to be a 
hjK'akcr at Abolitionist meetings, the speaker ran the risk of being 
pelted with rotten eggs, I happened to be present, as one of a small 
antislavery audience, gathered in an equally small hall. Among the 
speakers was an honest, strong-minded, warm-hearted young mechanic, 
who, an long as he was true to his theme, spoke earnestly, manfully, 
ami well ; but alas ! he thought he could not close without calling in 
some god or goddess to give emphasis — after the method of college 
stuileiits — to his previous statements. He selected, of course, that un- 
fortunate phantom whom he called the Goddess of Liberty. " Here, in 
iJostou," ht; thundered, "where she was cradled in Faneuil Hall, can it 
be that Liberty should be trampled under foot, when, after two genera- 
tions have passed, — yes, sir, have elapsed, — she has grown — yes, sir, 
1 rejH'at it. has grown — grown up, sir, into a great man ? " The change 
in Hex was, in this case, more violent than usual; but how many 
instances occur to everybody's recollection, where that poor Goddess 
has been almost equally outraged, through a puerile ambition on the 
part of the orator to endow her with an exceptional distinction by 
8enHele.ss rhodomontade, manufactured by the word-machine which he 
presumes to call his imagination ! All imitative imagery is the grave 
of common-sense. 

Now let lis pass to an imagination which is, perhaps, the grandest in 
American oratory, but which was as perfectly natural as that of the 
" cold molasses," or " (iod's flat-iron," of the New England farmer, — as 
natural, in.leed, as the "sky-blue, God's color," of the New England 
»M.y. Daniel Webster, standing on the heights of Quebec at an early 
hour of ii summer morning, heard the ordinary morning drum-beat 
which culled the garrison to their duty. Knowing that the British 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xxix 

possessions belted the globe, the thought occurred to him that the 
morning drum would go on beating in some English post to the time 
when it would sound again in Quebec. Afterwards, in a speech on 
President Jackson's Protest, he dwelt on the fact that our Revolu- 
tionary forefathers engaged in a war with Great Britain on a strict 
question of principle, " while actual suffering was still afar off." How 
could he give most effect to this statement ? It would have been easy 
for him to have presented statistical tables, showing the wealth, 
population, and resources of England, followed by an enumeration of 
her colonies and military stations, all going to prove the enormous 
strength of the nation against which the United American colonies 
raised their improvised flag. But the thought which had heretofore 
occurred to him at Quebec happily recurred to his mind the moment 
it was needed ; and he flashed on the imagination an image of British 
power which no statistics could have conveyed to the understanding, — 
" a Power," he said, " which has dotted over the surface of the whole 
globe with her possessions and military posts, whose morning drum- 
beat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles 
the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs 
of England." Perhaps a mere rhetorician might consider superfluous 
the word " whole," as applied to '' globe," and " unbroken," as follow- 
ing " continuous"; yet they really add to the force and majesty of the 
expression. It is curious that, in Great Britain, this magnificent im- 
personation of the power of England is so little known. It is certain 
that it is unrivalled in British patriotic oratory. Not Chatham, not 
even Burke, ever approached it in the noblest passages in which they 
celebrated the greatness and glory of their country. Webster, it is 
to be noted, introduced it in his speech, not for the purpose of exalt- 
ing England, but of exalting our Revolutionary forefathers, whose 
victory, after a seven years' war of terrible severity, waged in vin- 
dication of a principle, was made all the more glorious from having 
been won over an adversary so formidable and so vast. 

It is reported that, at the conclusion of this speech on the Presi- 
dent's Protest, John Sergeant, of Philadelphia, came up to the orator, 
and, after cordially shaking hands with him, eagerly asked, '' Where, 
Webster, did you get that idea of the morning drum-beat?" Like 
other public men, accustomed to address legislative assemblies, he was 
naturally desirous of knowing the place, if place there was, where such 
images and illustrations were to be found. The truth was that, if 
Webster had ever read Goethe's Faust, — which he of course never 
had done, — he might have referred his old friend to that passage 



jjxjf DANIEL WEBSTER 

wlu-rr Faust, ^'azing at the setting sun, aches to follow it in its course 
for ever. " See," he exclaims, " how the green-girt cottages shimmer 
in the setting 8un. He bends and sinks, — the day is outlived. Yonder 
he liurrics <.1t, and quickens other life. Oh, that I have no wing to lift 
me from thc^ ground, to struggle after— for ever after — him ! I should 
we, in everlasting evening beams, the stilly world at my feet, every 
height on fire, every vale in repose, the silver brook flowing into golden 
streams. Tlic rugged mountain, with all its dark defiles, would not 
then break my godlike course. Already the sea, with its heated bays, 
opens on my enraptured sight. Yet the god seems at last to sink away. 
lUit tlie new impulse wakes. I hurry on to drink his everlasting light, 

(he ihry he/ore me and the night behind, — and under me the waves." 

Ill Faust, the wings of the mind follow the setting sun; in Webster, 
they follow the rising sun; but the thought of each circumnavigates 
the globe, in joyous companionship with the same centre of life, light, 
and heat. — though the suggestion which prompts the sublime idea is 
widely ditTerent. The sentiment of Webster, calmly meditating on 
the heights of Quebec, contrasts strangely with the fiery feeling of 
Faust, ratrinf: atrainst the limitations of his mortal existence. A 
humorist, Charles Dickens, who never read either Goethe or Webster, 
ha.s oddly seized on the same general idea : " The British empire," 
— he says, in one of his novels, — "on which the sun never sets, and 
where the tax-gatherer never goes to bed." 

This celebrated image of the British "drum-beat" is here cited sim- 
ply to indicate the natural way in which all the faculties of Webster are 
brought into harmonious co-operation, whenever he seriously discusses 
any great cpjestion. His understanding and imagination, when both 
are roused into action, always cordially join hands. His statement of 
faet.s is so ccmibined with the argument founded on them, that they 
are interehangeable ; his statement having the force of argument, and 
his argument having the " substantiality " which properly belongs to 
statement; and to these he commonly adds an imaginative illustration, 
which gives increased reality to both statement and argument. In 
rapidly turning over the leaves of the six volumes of his Works, one 
can easily find numerous instances of this instinctive operation of his 
mind. In his first Bunker Hill oration, he announces that "the prin- 
rlple of free governments adheres to the 7\merican soil. It is bedded 
in it, inwnovable as its mountains." Again he says: "A call for 
the representative; system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there 
is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveringly 
made. W Iumc men may speak out, they demand it ; where the bayonet 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xxxi 

is at their throats, they pray for it." And yet again : " If the true 
spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. Human 
agency cannot extinguish it. Like the earth's central fire, it may be 
smothered for a time ; the ocean may overwhelm it ; mountains may 
press it down ; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave 
both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place 
or other, the volcano will break out, and flame up to heaven." It would 
be difficult to find in any European literature a similar embodiment of 
an elemental sentiment of humanity, in an image which is as elemental 
as the sentiment to which it gives vivid expression. 

And then with what majesty, with what energy, and with what 
simplicity, can he denounce a political transaction which, had it not 
attracted his ire, would hardly have survived in the memory of his 
countrymen ! Thus, in his Protest against Mr. Benton's Expunging 
Resolution, speaking for himself and his Senatorial colleague, he 
says : " We rescue our own names, character, and honor from all 
participation in this matter ; and, whatever the wayward character of 
the times, the headlong and plunging spirit of party devotion, or the 
fear or the love of power, may have been able to bring about elsewhere, 
we desire to thank God that they have not, as yet, overcome the love 
of libertj'-, fidelity to true republican principles, and a sacred regard 
for the Constitution in that State whose soil was drenched to a mire by 
the first and best blood of the Revolution." Perhaps the peculiar 
power of Webster in condemning a measure by a felicitous epithet, 
such as that he employs in describing " the plunging spirit of party 
devotion," was never more happily exercised. In that word " plun- 
ging," he intended to condense all his horror and hatred of a transaction 
which he supposed calculated to throw the true principles of constitu- 
tional government into a bottomless abyss of personal government, 
where right constitutional principles w^ould cease to have existence, as 
well as cease to have authority. 

There is one passage in his oration at the completion of the Bunker 
Hill Monument, which may be quoted as an illustration of his power 
of compact statement, and which, at the same time, may save readers 
from the trouble of reading many excellent histories of the origin and 
progress of the Spanish dominion in America, condensing, as it does, 
all which such histories can tell us in a few smitins sentences. 
" Spain," he says, " stooped on South America, like a vulture on its 
prey. Every thing was force. Territories were acquired by fire and 
sword. Cities were destroyed by fire and sword. Hundreds of thou- 
sands of human beings fell by fire and sword. Even conversion to 



,^ii DANIEL WEBSTER 

Chri.stianity was attempted by fire and sword." One is reminded, in 
this im-HHaRe, of Macaulay's method of giving vividness to his confident 
poiuTulivuition of facts by emphatic repetitions of the same form of 
wordu. Thi' repetition of "fire and sword," in this series of short, 
sharp wMitonces, ends in forcing the reality of what the words mean 
on the ilulh'st imagination ; and the climax is capped by affirming 
that " fire and sword " were the means by which the religion of peace 
wa.s recommondod to idolaters, whose heathenism was more benignant, 
and nior»' intrinsically Christian, than the military Christianity which 
was forct'*! upon them. 

And then, again, how easily Webster's imagination slips in, at the 
end of :i comparatively bald enumeration of the benefits of a good 
povernment, to vitalize the statements of his understanding ! " Every- 
where," he says, *' there is order, everywhere there is security. Every- 
where the law reaches to the highest, and reaches to the lowest, to 
protect all in their rights, and to restrain all from wrong ; and over all 
liovers liberty, — that liberty for which our fathers fought and fell on 
this very spot, with her eye ever watchful, and her eagle wing ever wide 
outspread." There is something astonishing in the dignity given in 
the last clause of this sentence to the American eagle, — a bird so 
degraded by the rhodomontade of fifth-rate declairaers, that it seemed 
imiK)8sil)le that the highest genius and patriotism could restore it to 
its priinat-y among the inhabitants of the air, and its just eminence 
as a symbol of American liberty. It is also to be noted, that Webster 
here alludes to "the bird of freedom" only as it appears on the 
American silver dollar that passes daily from hand to hand, where 
tht» watchful eye and the outspread wing are so inartistically repre- 
sented that the critic is puzzled to account for the grandeur of the 
irnagf which the orator contrived to evolve from the barbaric picture 
on the ugliest and clumsiest of civilized coins. 

'I'hc ( ipactness of Webster's statements occasionally reminds us 

of tin-' epigranunatic point which characterizes so many of the state- 
nuMils of Burke. 'J'hus, in presenting a memorial to Congress, signed 
by many prominent men of business, against President Jackson's sys- 
tem of finance, he saw at once that the Democrats would denounce it 
us another manifesto of the "moneyed aristocracy." Accordingly 
Wcbst.-r introduced the paper to the attention of the Senate, with the 
preliminary remark: "The memorialists are not unaware, that, if 
rights are attacked, attempts will be made to render odious those 
wliose rights are violated. Power always seeks such subjects on 
which t<^ try its experiments." It is difficult to resist the impression 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXlll 

that Webster must have been indebted to Burke for this maxim. 
Again, we are dehided into the belief tliat we must be reading Burke, 
Avhen Webster refers to the minimum principle as the right one to be 
followed in imposing duties on certain manufactures. " It lays the 
impost," he says, " exactly where it will do good, and leaves the rest 
free. It is an intelligent, discerning, discriminating principle ; not a 
blind, headlong, generalizing, uncalculating operation. Simplicity, 
undoubtedly, is a great beauty in acts of legislation, as well as in the 
works of art ; but in both it must be a simplicity resulting from con- 
gruity of parts and adaptation to the end designed ; not a rude gener- 
alization, which either leaves the particular object unaccomplished, or, 
in accomplishing it, accomplishes a dozen others also, which were not 
desired. It is a simplicity wrought out by knowledge and skill ; not 
the rough product of an undistinguishing, sweeping general principle." 

An ingenuous reader, who has not learned from his historical studies 
that men generally act, not from arguments addressed to their under- 
standings, but from vehement appeals which rouse their passions to 
defend their seeming interests, cannot comprehend why Webster's 
arguments against Nullification and Secession, which were apparently 
unanswerable, and which were certainly unanswered either by Hayne 
or Calhoun, should not have settled the question in debate between 
the North and the South. Such a reader, after patiently following all 
the turns and twists of the logic, all the processes of the reasoning 
employed on both sides of the intellectual contest, would naturally 
conclude that the party defeated in the conflict would gracefully 
acknowledge the fact of its defeat; and, as human beings, gifted, with 
the faculty of reason, would cheerfully admit the demonstrated results 
of its exercise. He would find it difiicult to comprehend why the 
men who were overcome in a fair gladiatorial strife in the open arena 
of debate, with brain pitted against brain, and manhood against man- 
hood, should resort to the rough logic of " blood and iron," when the 
nobler kind of logic, that which is developed in the struggle of mind 
with mind, had failed to accomplish the purposes which their hearts 
and wills, independent of their understandmgs, were bent on accom- 
plishing. 

It may be considered certain that so wise a statesman as Webster — 
a statesman whose foresight was so palpably the consequence of his 
insight, and whose piercing intellect was so admirably adapted to read 
events in their principles — never indulged in such illusions as those 
which cheered so many of his own adherents, when they supposed his 
triumph in argumentation was to settle a matter which was really based 



T^XxW DANIEL WEBSTER 

on orgiinic difToronces in the institutions of the two sections of the 
Union. II*; knew perfectly well that, while the Webster men were 
jjU.ryin},' in iiis victory over Calhoun, the Calhoun men were equally 
jubihmt in celebrating Calhoun's victory over him. Which of them 
liad the better in the argument was of little importance in comparison! 
with the terrilile fact tiiat the people of the Southern States were 
' wiilening, year by year, the distance which separated them from the 
' ])ef.|.le of the Northern States. We have no means of judging whether 
W«'bster clearly foresaw the frightful civil war between the two 
sections, which followed so soon after his own death. We only know 
tliat, to him, it was a conflict constantly impending, and which could' 
1)6 averted for the time only by compromises, concessions, and other 
temporary expedients. If he allowed his mind to pass from the 
pressing questions of the hour, and to consider the radical division 
between the two sections of the country which were only formally 
united, it would seem that he must have felt, as long as the institution 
of negro slavery existed, that he was only laboring to postpone a con- 
flict which it was impossible for him to prevent. 

Hut my present purpose is simply to indicate the felicity of Web- 
ster's intrepid assault on the principles which the Southern disunionists 
put forward in justification of their acts. Mr. Calhoun's favorite 
idea was tliis, — that Nullification was a conservative principle, to be 
exercised within the Union, and in accordance with a just interpreta- 
tion of the Constitution. "To begin with nullification," Webster 
retorted, " with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to 
secession, dismemberment, and general 'revolution, is as if one Avere 
to take tiio plunge of Niagara, and cry out that he would stop half- 
way down. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must 
go to the bott(un of the dark abyss below, were it not that the abyss 
luis no discovered bottom." 

How admirable also is his exposure of the distinction attempted to 
be drawn between secession, as a State right to be exercised under the 
provisions (.f what was called "the Constitutional Compact," and. 
revolution. " Secession," he says, " as a revolutionary right, is intelli-l 
giblc; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions,! 
and a.sserted at the head of armies, I can understand it. But as 
a practical right, existing under the Constitution, and in conformity 
with its provisions, it seems to me nothing but a plain absurdity; 
for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority oi 
government itself; it supposes dismemberment, without violating 
the j)rinciples of union; it supposes opposition to law, without 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXV 

crime ; it supposes the total overthrow of government, without revo- 
hition." 

After putting some pertinent interrogatories — which are arguments 
in themselves — relating to the inevitable results of secession, he adds, 
that " every man must see that these are all questions which can arise 
only after a revolution. They presuppose the breaking up of the gov- 
ernment. While the Constitution lasts, they are repressed"; — and 
then, with that felicitous use of the imagination as a handmaid of the 
understanding, which is the peculiar characteristic of his eloquence, he 
closes the sentence by saying, that "they spring up to annoy and 
startle us only from its grave." A mere reasoner would have stopped 
at the word " repressed " ; the instantaneous conversion of " ques- 
tions " into spectres, affrighting and annoying us as they spring up 
from the grave of the Constitution, — which is also by implication 
impersonated, — is the work of Webster's ready imagination ; and it 
thoroughly vitalizes the statements which precede it. 

A great test of the sincerity of a statesman's style is his moderation. 
Now, if we take the whole body of Mr. Webster's speeches, whether 
delivered in the Senate or before popular assemblies, during the 
period of his opposition to President Jackson's administration, we may 
well be surprised at their moderation of tone and statement. Every- 
body old enough to recollect the singular virulence of political sjDeech 
at that period must remember it as disgraceful equally to the national 
conscience and the national understanding. The spirit of party, always 
sufficiently fierce and unreasonable, was then stimulated into a fury 
resembling madness. Almost every speaker, Democrat or Whig, was 
in that state of passion whicli is represented by the physical sign of 
" foaming at the mouth." Few mouths then opened that did not imme- 
diately begin to '^ foam." So many fortunes were suddenly wrecked by 
President Jackson's financial policy, and the business of the country 
was so disastrously disturbed, that, whether the policy was right or 
wroniT, tliose who assailed and those who defended it seemed to be 
equally devoid of common intellectual honesty. " I do well to be 
angry," appears to have been the maxim which inspired Democratic and 
Whig orators alike ; and what reason there was on either side was sub- 
merged in the lies and libels, in the calumnies and caricatures, in the 
defamations and execrations, which accompanied the citation of facts 
and the affirmation of principles. Webster, during all this time, was 
selected as a shining mark, at which every puny writer or speaker 
who opposed him hurled liis small or large contribution of verbal 
rotten ecrgs ; and vet Webster was almost the only Whig statesman 



xxxvi DANIEL WEBSTER 

who preserved sanity of understanding during the whole progress of 
that jMilitical riot, in which the passions of men became the masters 
of their understandings. Pious Whig fathers, who worshipped the 
"gotllike Daniel," went almost to the extent of teaching their chil- 
dren to curse Jackson in their prayers; equally pious Democratic 
fathers brought up their sons and daughters to anathematize the fiend- 
like Daniel as the en«Mny of human rights ; and yet, in reading Web- 
Bter's 8i)eeches, covering the whole space between 1832 and 1836, we ; 
can hardly find a statement which an historian of our day would not 
admit a.s a candid generalization of facts, or an argument which would 
not stand the test of logical examination. Such an historian might 
entirely disagree; with the opinions of Webster; but he would cer- 
tainly award tu him the praise of being an honest reasoner and an 
lionest rhetorician, in a time when reason was used merely as a tool of 
party passion, and when rhetoric rushed madly into the worst excesses 
of rhodomontade. 

It is also to be said that Webster rarely indulged in personalities. 
When we consider how great wei-e his powders of sarcasm and invec- 
tive, how constant were the provocations to exercise them furnished 
by his political enemies, and how atrociously and meanly allusions to 
his private affairs were bi'ought into discussions which should' have 
been confined to refuting his reasoning, his moderation in this matter 
is to be ranked as a great virtue. He could not take a glass of wine 
without the trivial fact being announced all over the country as indis- 
puUil)K- proof that he was an habitual drunkard, though the most 
reni;irkal.le characteristic of his speeches is their temperance, — their 
"total abstinence" from all the intoxicating moral and mental 
"drinks" wliicli confuse the understanding and mislead the con- 
ecienco. Ik- could not borrow money on his note of hand, like any 
oth(!r citizen, without the circumstance being trumpeted abroad as 
incontrovertible evidence that Nick Biddle had paid him that sum 
to defen.l his diabolical Bank in the Senate of the United States. 
The plain fact that his speeches were confined strictly to the exposi- 
tion and^ defence of sound opinions on trade and finance, and that it 
was diflicult to answer them, only confirmed his opponents in the 
convu-tion that old Nick was at the bottom of it all. His great intel- 
l.'ct was a.buitte,!; but on the high, broad brow, which was its mani- 
festation to the eye, his enemies pasted the words, "To be let," or, 
'• For sale." The more impersonal he became in his statements and 
arguments, the more truculently was he assailed by the personalities 
of tlie political gossip and scandal-monger. Indeed, from the time he 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXvii 

I first came to the front as a great lawyer, statesman, and patriot, he 
was fixed upon by the whole crew of party libellers as a man whose 
arfjiiments could be answered most efficiently by staining his char- 
jicter. He passed through life with his head enveloped " in a cloud of 
poisonous flies " ; and the head was the grandest-looking head that had 
ever been seen on the American continent. It was so pre-eminently 
noble and impressive, and promised so much more than it could possi- 
bly perform, that only one felicitous sarcasm of party malice, among 
many thousands of bad jokes, has escaped oblivion ; and that was stolen 
from Charles Fox's remark on Lord Chancellor Thurlow, as Fox once 
viewed him sitting on the wool-sack, frowning on the English House 
of Lords, which he dominated by the terror of his countenance, and by 
the fear that he might, at any moment, burst forth in one of his short 
bullying, thundering retorts, should any comparatively weak baron, 
earl, marquis, or duke dare to oppose him. " Thurlow,"' said Fox, 
" must be an impostor, for nobody can be as wise as he looks." The 
American version of this was, " Webster must be a charlatan, for 
no one can be as great as he looks." 

But during all the time that his antagonists attempted to elude the 
force of his arguments by hunting up the evidences of his debts, and 
by trying to show that the most considerate, the most accurate, and the 
most temperate of his lucid statements were the products of physical 
stimulants, Webster steadily kept in haughty reserve his power of 
retaliation. In his speech in reply to Hayne he hinted that, if he were 
imperatively called upon to meet blows with blows, he might be found 
fully equal to his antagonists in that ignoble province of intellectual 
pugilism ; but that he preferred the more civilized struggle of brain 
with brain, in a contest which was to decide questions of principle. 
In the Senate, where he could meet his political opponents face to 
face, few dared to venture to degrade the subject in debate from the 
discussion of principles to the miserable subterfuge of imputing bad 
motives as a sufHcient answer to good arguments ; but still many of 
these dignified gentlemen smiled approval on the efforts of the low- 
minded, small-minded caucus-speakers of their party, when they 
declared that Webster's logic was unworthy of consideration, because 
he was bought by the Bank, or bought by the manufacturers of Massa- 
chusetts, or bought by some other combination of persons avIio were 
supposed to be the deadly enemies of the laboring men of the country. 
On some rare occasions Webster's wrath broke out in such smiting 
words that his adversaries were cowed into silence, and cursed the 
infatuation which had led them to overlook the fact that the " logic- 



j^^^y\\[ DANIEL WEBSTER 

inii.hino" had in it invectives more terrible than its reasonings. But 
jr,.'n..ially he refrained from using the giant's power "like a giant"; 
and it is almost pathetic to remember that, when Mr. Everett un- 
dertook to edit, in 1851, the standard edition of his works, Webster 
g:ive directions to expunge all personalities from his speeches, even 
wJM'n those i)ersonalities were the just punishment of unprovoked 
atta.-ks on his integrity as a man. Readers will look in vain, in this 
...lition (.f ids works, for some of the most pungent passages Avhich 
originally attracted their attention in the first report of the Defence 
of the Treaty of Washington. At the time these directions were 
given, Webster was himself the object of innumerable personalities, 
wliich were the natural, the inevitable results of his speech of the 
7th of March, 1850. 

It seems to be a law, that the fame of all public men shall be "half 
disfame." We are specially warned to beware of the man of whom all 
men speak well. Burke, complimenting his friend Fox for risking 
eviTv thing, even his "darling popularity," on the success of the East 
India Bill, nobly says: "He is traduced and abused for his sup- 
posed motives. He will remember, that obloquy is a necessary ingre- 
dient in all true glory ; he will remember, that it was not only in the 
Roman customs, but it is in the nature of human things, that calumny 
and abuse are essential parts of triumph." 

It may be said, however, that Webster's virtue in this general 
abstinence from personalities is to be offset by the fact that he could 
throw into a glance of his eye, a contortion of his face, a tone of his 
voice, or a sim[)le gesture of his hand, more scorn, contempt, and 
hatn-d than ordinary debaters could express by the profuse use of all 
the scurrilous terms in the English language. Probably many a sen- 
tonce, which we now read with an even pulse, was, as originally deliv- 
errd, accoini)anied by such pointing of the finger, or such flashing of 

tl yt', or such raising of the voice, that the seemingly innocent 

worils were poisoned arrows that festered in the souls of those against 
whom they were directed, and made deadly enemies of a number of 
persons wh()m4ie seems, in his printed speeches, never to have men- 
tion. •<] without tlie respect due from one Senator to another. In his 
speech in defence of the Treaty of Washington, he had to repel Mr. 
IngersolTs indeci^nt attack on his integrity, and his dreadful retort is 
described by those who heard it as coming within the rules which 
contlemn crnelty to animals. But the "noble rage " which prompted 
him to iiuhdge in such unwonted invective subsided with the occasion 
that called it forth, and he was careful to have it expunged when the 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXxix 

speech was reprinted. An eminent judge of the Supreme Court of 
Massachusetts, in commending the general dignity and courtesy wliicli 
characterized Webster's conduct of a case in a court of law, noted one 
exception. " When," he said, " the opposite counsel had got him into 
a corner, the way he ' trampled out ' was something frightful to behold. 
The court itself could hardly restrain him in his gigantic efforts to 
extricate himself from the consequences of a blunder or an oversight." 
Great writers and orators are commonly economists in the use of 
words. They compel common words to bear a burden of thought and 
emotion, which mere rhetoricians, with all the resources of the lan- 
guage at their disposal, would never dream of imposing upon them. 
But it is also to be observed, that some writers have the power of 
giving a new and special significance to a common word, by impressing 
on it a wealth of meaning which it cannot claim for itself. Three 
obvious examples of this peculiar power may be cited. Among poets, 
Chaucer infused into the simple word "green " a poetic ecstasy which 
no succeeding English poet, not even Wordsworth, has ever rivalled, in 
describing an English landscape in the month of May. Jonathan 
Edwards fixed upon the term " sweetness " as best conveying his loftiest 
conception of the bliss which the soul of the saint can attain to on earth, 
or expect to be blessed with in heaven ; but not one of his theological 
successors has ever caught the secret of using " sweetness " in the 
sense attached to it by him. Dr. Barrow gave to the word " rest," as 
embodying his idea of the spiritual repose of the soul fit for heaven, 
a significance which it bears in tlie works of no other great English 
divine. To descend a little, Webster was fond of certain words, 
commonplace enough in themselves, to which he insisted on imparting 
a more than ordinary import. Two of these, which meet us contin- 
ually in reading his speeches, are " interesting " and " respectable." 
The first of these appears to him competent to express that rapture of 
attention called forth by a thing, an event, or a person, which other 
writers convey by such a term as " absorbing," or its numerous 
equivalents. If we should select one passage from his works which, 
more than any other, indicates his power of seeing and feeling, through 
a process of purely imaginative vision and sympathy, it is that portion 
of his Plymouth oration, where he places himself and his audience as 
spectators on the barren shore, when the Mayflower came into view. 
He speaks of " the interesting group upon the deck " of tlie little 
vessel. The very word suggests that we are to have a very common- 
place account of the landing, and the circumstances which followed it. 
In an instant, however, we are made to " feel the cold which 



xl DANIEL WEBSTER 

benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced " this " interesting " 
group; and immediately after, the picture is flashed upon the imagi- 
nation of "chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a 
mother's arms, couchless, but for a mother's breast," — an image which 
shows that the orator had not only transported himself into a spectator 
of the scene, but had felt his own blood " almost freeze " in intense 
sympathy with the physical sufferings of the shelterless mothers and 
children. 

There is no word which the novelists, satirists, philanthropic 
reformers, and Bohemians of our day have done so much to discredit, 
and make dis-respectable to the heart and the imagination, as the 
word "respectable." Webster always uses it as a term of eulogy. 
A respectable man is, to his mind, a person who performs all his du- 
ties to his family, his country, and his God ; a person who is not only 
virtuous, but who has a clear perception of the relation which con- 
nects one virtue with another by " the golden thread " of moderation, 
and who, whether he be a man of genius, or a business man of average 
talent, or an intelligent mechanic, or a farmer of sound moral and 
mental character, is to be considered "respectable " because he is one 
of those citizens whose intelligence and integrity constitute the foun- 
dation on which the Republic rests. As late as 1843, in his noble 
oration on the completion of the Bunker Hill Monument, he declared 
that if our American institutions had done nothing more than to pro- 
duce the character of Washington, that alone would entitle them to the 
respect of mankind. " Washington is all our own ! . . . I would 
cheerfully put the question to-day to the intelligence of Europe and 
the world, what character of the century, upon the whole, stands out 
in the relief of history, most pure, most respectable, most sublime; and 
I tloubt not, that, by a suffrage approaching to unanimity, the answer 
would be Washington ! " It is needless to quote other instances of the 
l)eculiar meaning he put into the word " respectable," when we thus 
find him challenging the Europe of the eighteenth century to name a 
match for Washington, and placing " most respectable " after " most 
j)ure," and immediately preceding " most sublime," in his enumera- 
tion of the three qualities in which Washington surpassed all men of 
his century. 

It has been often remarked that Webster adapted his style, even his 
habits of mind and modes of reasoning, to the particular auditors he 
desired to influence ; but that, whether he addressed an unorganized 
crowd of people, or a jury, or a bench of judges, or the Senate of the 
United States, he ever proved himself an orator of the first class. 



AS A PIASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xU 

His admirers commonly confine themselves to the admirable sagacity 
with which he discriminated between the kind of reasoning proper to 
be employed when he addressed courts and juries, and tlie kind of 
reasoning which is most effective in a legislative assembly. The 
lawyer and the statesman were, in Webster, kept distinct, except so 
far as he was a lawyer who had argued before the Supreme Court 
questions of constitutional law. ^'' An amusing instance of this abne- 
gation of the lawyer, while incidentally bringing in a lawyer's 
knowledge of judicial decisions, occurs in a little episode in his 
debate with Mr. Calhoun, in 1849, as to the relation of Congress to 
the Territories. Mr. Calhoun said that he had been told that the 
Supreme Court of the United States had decided, in one case, that the 
Constitution did not extend to the Territories, but that he was 
''incredulous of the fact." "Oh!" rephed Mr. Webster, "I can 
remove the gentleman's incredulity very easily, for I can assure him 
that the same thing has been decided by the United States courts over 
and over again for the last thirty years." It will be observed, how- 
ever, that Mr. Webster, after communicating this important item of 
information, proceeded to discuss the question as if the Supreme 
Court had no existence, and bases his argument on the plain terms of 
the Constitution, and the plain facts recorded in the history of the 
government established by it. 

Macaulay, in his lively way, has shown the difficulty of manufactur- 
ing English statesmen out of English lawyers, though, as lawyers, their 
rank in the profession may be very high. " Their arguments," he says, 
" are intellectual prodigies, abounding with the happiest analogies and 
the most refined distinctions. The principles of their arbitrary science 
being once admitted, the statute-books and the reports being once 
assumed as the foundations of reasoning, these men must be allowed 
to be perfect masters of logic. But if a question arises as to the pos- 
tulates on which their whole system rests, if they are called upon to 
vindicate the fundamental maxims of that system which they have 
passed their lives in studying, these very men often talk the language 
of savao-es or of children. Those who have listened to a man of this 
class in his own court, and who have witnessed the skill witli which he 
aualv7.es and digests a vast mass of evidence, or reconciles a crowd 
of precedents which at first sight seem contradictory, scarcely know 
him again when, a few hours later, they hear him speaking on the 
other side of Westminster Hall in his capacity of legislator. They 
can scarcely believe that the paltry quirks which are faintly heard 
through a storm of coughing, and which do not impose on the plainest 



k 



xlii DANIEL WEBSTER 

country gentleman, can proceed from the same sharp and vigorous 
intellect which had excited their admiration under the same roof, and 
on the same day." And to this keen distinction between an English 
lawyer, and an English lawyer as a member of the House of Commons, 
may be added the peculiar kind of sturdy manliness which is demanded 
in any person who aims to take a leading part in Parliamentary 
debates. Erskine, probably the greatest advocate who ever appeared 
in the English courts of law, made but a comparatively poor figure in 
the House of Commons, as a member of the Whig opposition. " The 
truth is, Erskine," Sheridan once said to him, "you are afraid of Pitt, 
and that is the flabby part of your character." 

But Macaulay, in another article, makes a point against the leaders 
of party themselves. His definition of Parliamentary govei-nment is 
" govex-nment by speaking " ; and he declares that the most effective 
speakers are commonly ill-informed, shallow in thought, devoid of 
large ideas of legislation, hazarding the loosest speculations with the 
utmost intellectual impudence, and depending for success on volubility 
of speech, rather than on accuracy of knowledge or penetration of 
intelligence. " The tendency of institutions like those of England," 
he adds, " is to encourage readiness in public men, at the expense both 
of fulness and of exactness. The keenest and most vigorous minds of 
every generation, minds often admirably fitted for the investigation of 
truth, are habitually employed in producing arguments such as no 
man of sense w^ould ever put into a treatise intended for publication, 
arguments which are just good enough to be used once, when aided by 
fluent delivery and pointed language." And he despairingly closes 
with the remark, that he " would sooner expect a great original work 
on political science, such a work, for example, as the Wealth of 
Nations, from an apothecary in a country town, or from a minister in 
the Hebrides, than from a statesman who, ever since he was one-and- 
twenty, had been a distinguished debater in the House of Commons." 

Now it is plain that neither of these contemptuous judgments 
applies to Webster. He was a great lawyer; but as a legislator the 
precedents of the lawyer did not control the action or supersede the 
principles of the statesman. He was one of the most formidable 
debaters that ever appeared in a legislative assembly ; and yet those 
who most resolutely grappled with him in the duel of debate would 
be the last to impute to him inaccuracy of knowledge or shallowness 
of thought. He carried into the Senate of the United States a trained 
mind, disciplined by the sternest culture of his faculties, disdaining 
any plaudits which were not the honest reward of robust reasoning on 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xliii 

generalized facts, and " gravitating " in the direction of truth, whetlier 
he hit or missed it. In his case, at least, there was nothing in his 
legal experience, or in his legislative experience, which would have 
unfitted him for producing a work on the science of politics. The 
best speeches in the House of Commons of Lord Palmerston and Lord 
John Russell appear very weak indeed, as compared with the Reply to 
Hayne, or the speech on '' The Constitution not a Compact between 
Sovereign States," or the speech on the President's Protest. 

In this connection it may be said, when we remember the hot 
contests between the two men, that there is something plaintive in 
Calhoun's dying testimony to Webster's austere intellectual conscien- 
tiousness. Mr, Venables, who attended the South Carolina states- 
man in his dying hours, wrote to Webster : " When your name was 
mentioned he remarked that ' Mr. Webster has as high a standard of 
truth as any statesman I have met in debate. Convince him, and he 
cannot reply ; he is silenced ; he cannot look truth in the face and 
oppose it by argument. I think that it can be readily perceived by 
his manner when he felt the unanswerable force of a reply.' He 
often spoke of you in my presence, and always kindly and most 
respectfully." Now it must be considered that, in debate, the minds 
of Webster and Calhoun had come into actual contact and collision. 
Each really felt the force of the other. An ordinary duel might be 
ranked among idle pastimes when compared with the stress and strain 
and pain of their encounters in the duel of debate. A sword-cut or 
pistol-bullet, maiming the body, was as nothing in comparison with 
the wounds they mutually inflicted on that substance which was 
immortal in both. It was a duel, or series of duels, in which mind 
was opposed to mind, and will to will, and where the object appeared 
to be to inflict moral and mental annihilation on one of the comba- 
tants. There never passed a word between them on which the most 
ingenious Southern jurists, in their interpretations of the "code" of 
honor, could have found matter for a personal quarrel ; and yet these 
two proud and strong personalities knew that they were engaged in a 
mortal contest, in which neither gave quarter nor expected quarter. 
Mr. Calhoun's intellectual egotism was as great as his intellectual 
ability. He always supposed that he was the victor in every close 
logical wrestle with any mind to which his own was opposed. He 
j never wrestled with a mind, until he met Webster's, which in tenacity, 
I grasp, and power was a match for his own. He, of course, thought 
his antagonist was beaten by his superior strength and amplitude of 
; argumentation ; but it is still to be noted that he, the most redoubtable 



xliv DANIEL WEBSTER 

opponent that Webster ever encountered, testified, though in equivocal 
terms, to Webster's intellectual honesty. When he crept, half dead, 
into the Senate-Chamber to hear Webster's speech of the 7th of 
March, 1850, he objected emphatically at the end to Webster's decla- 
ration that the Union could not be dissolved. After declaring that 
Calhoun's supposed case of justifiable resistance came within the 
definition of the ultimate right of revolution, which is lodged in all 
oppressed communities, Webster added that he did not at that time 
Avisli to go into a discussion of the nature of the United States 
government. " The honorable gentleman and myself," he said, "have 
broken lances sufficiently often before on that subject." "I have no 
desire to do it now," replied Calhoun ; and Webster blandly retorted, 
" I presume the gentleman has not, and I have quite as little." One is 
reminded here of Dr. Johnson's remark, when he was stretched on a 
sick-bed, with his gladiatorial powers of argument suspended by physi- 
cal exhaustion. '' If that fellow Burke were now present," the Doctor 
humorously murmured, " he would certainly kill me." 

But to Webster's eminence as a lawyer and a statesman, it is proper 
to add, that he has never been excelled as a writer of state papers 
among the public men of the United States. Mr. Emerson has a 
phrase which is exactly applicable to these efforts of Webster's mind. 
That phrase is, " superb propriety." Throughout his despatches, he 
always seems to feel that he impersonates his country ; and the gravity 
and weight of his style are as admirable as its simplicity and majestic 
ease. " I)aniel Webster, his mark," is indelibly stamped on them all. 
When the Treaty of Washington was criticised by the Whigs in the 
English Parliament, Macaulay specially noticed the difference in the 
style of the two negotiators. Lord Ashburton, he said, had compro- 
mised the honor of his country by " the humble, caressing, wheedling 
tone " of his letters, a tone which contrasted strangely with " the firm, 
resolute, vigilant, and unyielding manner" of the American Secretary 
of State. It is to be noticed that no other opponent of Sir Robert 
Peel's administration, not even Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, 
struck at the essential weakness of Lord Ashburton's despatches with 
the force and sagacity which characterized Macaulay's assault on the 
treaty. Indeed, a rhetorician and critic less skilful than Macaulav can 
easily detect that "America" is represented fully in Webster's 
despatches, while " Britannia " has a very amiable, but not very forci- 
V)le, representative in Lord Ashburton. Had Palmerston been the 
British plenipotentiary, we can easily imagine how different would 
liave been the task imposed on Webster. As the American Secretary 






AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlv 

was generally in the right in every position he assumed, he would 
probably have triumphed even over Palmerston ; but the letters of the 
" pluckiest " of English statesmen would, we may be sure, have never 
been criticised in the House of Commons as " humble, wheedling, and 
caressing." 

In addition, however, to his legal arguments, his senatorial speeches, 
and his state papei's, Webster is to be considered as the greatest orator 
our country has produced in his addresses before miscellaneous assem- 
blages of the people. In saying this we do not confine the remark to 
such noble orations as those on the " First Settlement of New Eng 
land," " The Bunker Hill Monument," and " Adams and Jefferson, 
but extend it so as to include speeches before great masses of people 
who could be hardly distinguished from a mob, and who were under no 
restraint but that imposed by their own self-respect and their respect 
for the orator. On these occasions he was uniformly successful. It is 
impossible to detect, in any reports of these popular addresses, that he 
ever stooped to employ a style of speech or mode of ax'gument com- 
monly supposed appropriate to a speaker on the " stump"; and yet he 
was the greatest " stump " orator that our country has ever seen. He 
seemed to delight in addressing live, or ten, or even twenty thousand 
people, in the open air, trusting that the penetrating tones of his voice 
Avould reach even the ears of those who were on the ragged edges of 
the swaying crowd before him ; and he would thus speak to the sover- 
eign people, in their unorganized state as a collection of uneasy and 
somewhat belligerent individuals, with a dignity and majesty similar to 
the dignity and majesty which characterized his arguments before the 
Senate of the United States, or before a bench of judges. A large 
portion of his published works consist of such speeches, and they rank 
only second among the remarkable productions of his mind. 

The question arises, How could he hold the attention of such 
audiences without condescending to flatter their prejudices, or without 
occasionally acting the part of the sophist and the buffoon? Much 
may be said, in accounting for this phenomenon, about his widely 
extended reputation, his imposing presence, the vulgar curiosity to see 
a man whom even the smallest country newspaper thought of sufficient 
importance to defame, his power of giving vitality to simple words 
which the most ignorant of his auditors could easily understand, and 
the instinctive respect which the rudest kind of men feel for a gnind 
specimen of robust manhood. But the real, the substantial source of 
bis power over such audiences proceeded from his respect for them ; 
and their respect for him was more or less consciously founded on the 
perception of this fact. 



xlvi DANIEL WEBSTER 

Indeed, a close scrutiny of his speeches will show how conscien- 
tiously he regards the rights of other minds, however inferior they 
may he to his own ; and this virtue, for it is a virtue, is never more 
apparent than in his arguments and appeals addressed to popular 
assemblies. No working-man, whether farmer, mechanic, factory 
" hand," or day-laborer, ever deemed himself insulted by a word from 
the lips of Daniel Webster ; he felt himself rather exalted in his own 
esteem, for the time, by coming in contact with that beneficent and 
comprehensive intelligence, which cherished among its favorite ideas a 
scheme for lifting up the American laborer to a height of comfort and 
respectability which the European laborer could hardly hope to attain. 
Prominent politicians, men of wealth and influence, statesmen of high 
social and political rank, may, at times, have considered Webster as 
arrogant and bad-tempered, and may, at times, have felt disposed to « 
fasten a quarrel upon him ; even in Massachusetts this disposition 
broke out in conventions of the party to which he belonged ; but it 
would be in vain to find a single laboring-man, whether he met Web- • 
ster in private, or half pushed and half fought his way into a mass 
meeting, in order to get his ears into communication with the orator's 
voice, who ever heard a word from him which did not exalt the dignity 
of labor, or which was not full of sympathy for the laborer's occasional 
sorrows and privations. Webster seeined to have ever present to his 
mind the poverty of the humble home of his youth. His father, his 
brothers, he himself, had all been brought up to consider manual 
toil a dignified occupation, and as consistent with the exercise of all 
the virtues which flourish under the domestic roof. More than this, it 
may be said that, with the exception of a few intimate friends, his 
sympathies to the last were most warmly with common laborers. 
Indeed, if we closely study the private correspondence of this states- 
man, who was necessarily brought into relations, more or less friendly, 
with the conventionally great men of the world, European as well as 
American, we shall find that, after all, he took more real interest in 
Seth Peterson, and John Taylor, and Porter Wright, men connected 
with him in fishing and farming, than he did in the ambassadors of 
foreign states whom he met as Senator or as Secretary of State, or in 
all the members of the polite society of Washington, New York, and 
Boston. He was very near to Nature himself ; and the nearer a man 
was to Nature, the more he esteemed Ir'm. Thus persons Mdio super- 
intended his farms and cattle, or who pulled an oar in his boat when 
he ventured out in search of cod and halibut, thought " Squire Web- 
ster " a man who realized their ideal and perfection of good-fellowship ; 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlvU 

while it may confidently be siiid that many of his closest friends 
among men of culture, including lawyers, men of letters, and states- 
men of the first rank, must have occasionally resented the " anfractu- 
osities " of his mood and temper. But Seth Peterson, and Porter 
Wright, and John Taylor, never complained of these " anfrac- 
tuosities." Webster, in fact, is one of the few public men of the 
country in whose championship of the rights and sympathy Avith the 
wrongs of labor there is not the slightest trace of the arts of 
the demagogue ; and in this fact we may find the reason why even the 
"■ roughs," who are present in every mass meeting, always treated him 
with respect. Perhaps it would not be out of place to remark here, 
that, in his Speech of the 7th of March, he missed a grand opportunity 
to vindicate Northern labor, in the reference he made to a foolish 
tirade of a Senator from Louisiana, who " took pains to run a con- 
trast between the slaves of the South and the laboring people of the 
North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, of comfort, 
and happiness, to the slaves of the South." Webster made a complete 
reply to this aspersion on Northern labor ; but, as his purpose was to 
conciliate, he did not blast the libeller by quoting the most eminent 
example that could be named demonstrating the falsehood of the 
slave-holding Senator's assertion. Without deviating from the con- 
ciliatory attitude he had assumed, one could easily imagine him as lift- 
ing his large frame to its full height, flashing from his rebuking eyes 
a glance of scorn at the " amiable Senator," and simply saying, " I 
belong to the class which the Senator from Louisiana stigmatizes as 
more degraded than the slaves of the South." There was not at the 
time any Senator from the South, except Mr. Calhoun, that the most 
prejudiced Southern man would have thought of comparing with Web- 
ster in respect to intellectual eminence ; and, if Webster had then and 
there placed himself squarely on his position as the son of a Northern 
laborer, we should have been spared all the rhetoric about Northern 
" mud-sills," with which the Senate was afterwai'ds afflicted. Web- 
ster was our man of men ; and it would seem that he should have 
crushed such talk at the outset, by proudly assuming that Northern 
labor was embodied and impersonated in him, — that HE had sprung 
from its ranks, and was proud of his ancestry. 

An ingenious and powerful, but paradoxical thinker, once told me 
that I was mistaken in calling Jonathan Edwards and Daniel Webster 
great reasoners. " They were bad reasoners," he added, " but great 
poets." Without questioning the right of the author of " An Enquiry 
into the Modern Prevailing Notion of that Freedom of the Will, which 



xlviii DANIEL WEBSTER 

is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency," to be ranked among the 
most eminent of modern logicians, I could still understand why he was 
classed among poets ; for whether Edwards paints the torments of 
hell or the bliss of heaven, his imagination almost rivals that of Dante 
in intensity of realization. But it was at first puzzling to comprehend 
why Webster should be depressed as a reasoner in order to be exalted 
as a poet. The images and metaphors scattered over his speeches are 
so evidently brought in to illustrate and enforce his statements and 
arguments, that, grand as they often are, the imagination displayed in 
them is still a faculty strictly subsidiary to the reasoning power. It 
was only after reflecting patiently for some time on the seeming 
paradox that I caught a glimpse of my friend's meaning ; and it led 
me at once to consider an entirely novel question, not heretofore 
mooted by any of Webster's critics, whether friendly or unfriendly, in 
their endeavors to explain the reason of his influence over the best 
minds of the generation to which he belonged. In declaring that, as 
a poet, he far exceeded any capacity he evinced as a reasoner, my 
paradoxical friend must have meant that Webster had the poet's 
power of so organizing a speech, that it stood out to the eye of the 
mind as a palpable intellectual product and fact, possessing, not merely 
that vague reality which comes from erecting a plausible mental 
structure of deductive argumentation, based on strictly limited prem- 
ises, but a positive reality, akin to the products of Nature herself, 
when she tries her hand in constructing a ledge of rocks or rearing a 
chain of hills. 

In illustration, it may be well to cite the example of poets with 
whom Webster, of course, cannot be compared. Among the great 
mental facts, palpable to the eyes of all men interested in literature, 
are such creations as the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, the great 
Shakspearian dramas, the Paradise Lost, and Faust. The commen- 
taries and criticisms on these are numerous enough to occupy the 
shelves of a large library ; some of them attempt to show that Homer, 
Dante, Shakspeare, Milton, and Goethe were all wrong in their 
methods of creation ; but they still cannot obscure, to ordinary vision, 
the lustre of these luminaries as they placidly shine in the intellectual 
firmament, which is literally over our heads. They are as palpable, 
to the eye of the mind, as Sirius, Arcturus, the Southern Cross, 
and the planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, are to the bodily 
sense. M. Taine has recently assailed the Paradise Lost with the 
happiest of French epigrams; he tries to prove that, in construc- 
tion, it is the most ridiculously inartistic monstrosity that the imagi- 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlix 

nation of a great mind ever framed out of chaos ; but, after we have 
thoroughly enjoyed the play of his wit, there the Paradise Lost 
remains, an undisturbed object in the intellectual heavens, disdaining 
to justify its right to exist on any other grounds than the mere fact of 
its existence ; and, certainly, not more ridiculous than Saturn himself, 
as we look at him through a great equatorial telescope, swinging 
through space encumbered with his clumsy ring, and his wrangling 
family of satellites, but still, in spite of peculiarities on which M. 
Taine miirht exercise his wit until doomsday, one of the most beauti- 
ful and sublime objects which the astronomer can behold in the whole 
phenomena of the heavens. 

Indeed, in reading criticisms on such durable poetic creations and 
organizations as we have named, one is reminded of Sydney Smith's 
delicious chaffing of his friend Jeffrey, on account of Jeffrey's sensi- 
tiveness of literary taste, and his inward rage that events, men, and 
books, outside of him, do not correspond to the exacting rules which are 
the products of his own subjective and somewhat peevish intelligence. 
" I like," says Sydney, " to tell you these things, because you never do 
so well as when you are humbled and frightened, and, if you could he 
alarmed into the semblance of modesty, you would charm everybody ; 
but remember my joke against you about the moon : ' D — n the solar 
system! bad light — jjlanets too distant — pestered with comets — 
feeble contrivance ; could make a better with great ease.' " 

Now when a man, in whatever department or direction of thought 
his activity is engaged, succeeds in organizing, or even welding 
together, the materials on which he works, so that the product, as a 
whole, is visible to the mental eye, as a new creation or construction, 
he has an irnmense advantage over all critics of his performance. 
Refined reasonings are impotent to overthrow it ; epigrams glance off 
from it, as rifle-bullets rebound when aimed at a granite wall ; and it 
stands erect long after the reasonings and the epigrams are forgotten. 
Even when its symmetry is destroyed by a long and destructive siege, 
a pile of stones still remains, as at Fort Sumter, to attest what poAver 
of resistance it opposed to all the resources of modern artillery. 

If we look at Webster's greatest speeches, as, for instance, " The 
Reply to Hayne," " The Constitution not a Compact between Sover- 
eign States," "The President's Protest," and others that might be 
mentioned, we shall find that they partake of the character of organic 
formations, or at least of skilful engineering or architectural construc- 
tions. Even Mr. Calhoun never approached him in this art of giving 
objective reality to a speech, which, after all, is found, on analysis, to 

d 



'-I 



1 DANIEL WEBSTER 

consist only of a happy collocation and combination of words ; but in 
Webster the words are either all alive with the creative spirit of the 
poet, or, at the worst, resemble the blocks of granite or marble which 
the artisan piles, one on the other, and the result of which, though it 
may represent a poor style of architecture, is still a rude specimen of 
a Gothic edifice. The artist and artificer are both observable in Web 
ster's work ; but the reality and solidity of the construction cannot be 
questioned. At the present time, an educated reader would be specially 
interested in the mental processes by which Webster thus succeeded in 
giving objective existence and validity to the operations of his mind ; 
and, whether sympathizing with his opinions or not, would as little 
think of refusing to read them because of their Whiggism, as he would 
think of refusing to read Homer because of his heathenism, or Dante 
because of his Catholicism, or Milton because of his compound of 
Arianism and Calvinism, or Goethe because of his Pantheism. The 
fact which would most interest such a reader would be, that Webster 
had, in some mysterious way, translated and transformed his abstract 
propositions into concrete substance and form. The form might 
offend his reason, his taste, or his conscience ; but he could not avoid 
admitting that it had a form, while most speeches, even those made by 
able men, are comparatively formless, however lucid they may be in 
the array of facts, and plausible in the order and connection of argu- 
ments. 

In trying to explain this power, the most obvious comparison 
which would arise in the mind of an intelligent reader would be, that 
Webster, as a rhetorician, resembled Vauban and Cohorn as military 
engineers. In the war of debate, he so fortified the propositions he 
maintained, that they could not be carried by dii'ect assault, but must 
be patiently besieged. The words he employed were simple enough, 
and fell short of including the vocabulary of even fifth-rate declaimers ; 
but he had the art of so disposing them that, to an honest reasoner, 
the position he took appeared to be impregnable. To assail it by the 
ordinary method of passionate protest and illogical reasoning, was as 
futile as a dash of light cavalry would have been against the defences 
of such cities as Namur and Lille. Indeed, in his speech, " The Consti- 
tution not a Compact between Sovereign States," he erected a whole 
Torres Vedras line of fortifications, on which legislative Massenas 
dashed themselves in vain, and, however strong in numbers in respect 
to the power of voting him down, recoiled defeated in every attempt 
to reason him down. 

In further illustration of this peculiar power of Webster, the Speech 



k 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. 11 

of the 7tli of March, 1850, maybe cited, for its delivery is to be ranked 
with the most important historical events. For some years it was the 
object of the extremes of panegyric and the extremes of execration. 
But this effort is really the most loosely constructed of all the great pro- 
ductions of Webster's mind. In force, compactness, and completeness, 
in closeness of thought to things, in closeness of imagery to the reason- 
ing it illustrates, and in general intellectual fibre, muscle, and bone, it 
cannot be compared to such an oration as that on the " First Settlement 
of New England," or such a speech as that which had for its theme, 
" The Constitution not a Compact between Sovereign States " ; but, 
after all deductions have been made, it was still a speech which frowned 
upon its opponents as a kind of verbal fortress constructed both for the 
purpose of defence and aggression. Its fame is due, in a great degree, 
to its resistance to a storm of assaults, such as had rarely before been 
concentrated on any speech delivered in either branch of the Congress 
of the United States. Indeed, a very large portion of the intellect, the 
moral sentiment, and the moral passion of the free States was directed 
against it. There was not a weapon in the armory of the dialectician 
or the rhetorician which was not employed with the intent of demolish- 
ing it. Contempt of Webster was vehemently taught as the beginning 
of political wisdom. That a speech, thus assailed, should survive the 
attacks made upon it, appeared to be impossible. And yet it did 
survive, and is alive now, while better speeches, or what the present 
writer thought, at the time, to be more convincing speeches, have not 
retained individual existence, however deeply they may have influ- 
enced that public opinion which, in the end, determines political 
events. " I still live," was Webster's declaration on his death-bed, 
when the friends gathered around it imagined he had breathed his 
last ; and the same words might be uttered by the Speech of the 7th 
of March, could it possess the vocal organ which announces personal 
existence. Between the time it was originally delivered and the 
present year there runs a great and broad sti'eam of blood, shed from 
the veins of Northern and Southern men alike ; the whole political 
and moral constitution of the country has practically suffered an 
abrupt change ; new problems engage the attention of thoughtful 
statesmen ; much is forgotten which was once considered of the first 
importance; but the 7th of March Speech, battered as it is by innu- 
merable attacks, is still remembered at least as one which called forth 
more power than it embodied in itself. This persistence of life is due 
to the fact that it was "organized." 

Is this power of organization common among orators? It seems to 



lii DANIEL WEBSTER 

nae that, on the contrary, it is very rare. In some of Burke's speeches, 
in which his sensibility and imagination were thoroughly under the 
control of his judgment, as, for instance, his speech on Conciliation 
with America, that on Economical Reform, and that to the Elec- 
tors of Bristol, we find the orator to be a consummate master of the 
art of so constructing a speech that it serves the immediate object 
which prompted its delivery, while at the same time it has in it a 
principle of vitality which makes it survive the occasion that called 
it forth. But the greatest of Burke's speeches, if we look merely at 
the richness and variety of mental power and the force and depth of 
moral passion displayed in it, is his speech on the Nabob of Arcot's 
Debts. No speech ever delivered before any assembly, legislative, 
judicial, or popular, can rank with this in respect to the abundance of 
its facts, reasonings, and imagery, and the ferocity of its moral wrath. 
It resembles the El Dorado that Voltaire's Candide visited, where the 
boys played with precious stones of inestimable value, as our boys 
play with ordinary marbles; for to the inhabitants of El Dorado 
diamonds and pearls were as common as pebbles are with us. 

But the defect of this speech, which must still be considered, on the 
whole, the most inspired product of Burke's great nature, Avas this, — 
that it did not strike its hearers or readers as having reality for its 
basis or the superstructure raised upon it. Englishmen could not 
believe then, and most of them probably do not believe now, that 
it had any solid foundation in incontrovertible facts. It did not 
" fit in " to their ordinary modes of thought ; and it has never been 
ranked with Burke's "organized" orations; it has never come home 
to what Bacon called the " business and bosoms " of his countrymen. 
They have generally dismissed it from their imaginations as " a 
phantasmagoria and a hideous dream " created by Burke under the 
impulse of the intense hatred he felt for the administration which 
succeeded the overthrow of the government, which was founded on 
tiie coalition of Fox and North. 

Now, in simple truth, the speech is the most masterly statement of 
facts, relating to the oppression of millions of the people of India, 
which was ever forced on the attention of the House of Commons, — 
a legislative assembly which, it may be incidentally remarked, was 
practically responsible for the just government of the immense Indian 
empire of Great Britain. It is curious that the main facts on which 
the argument of Burke rests have been confirmed by James Mill, the 
coldest-blooded historian that ever narrated the enormous crimes 
which attended the rise and progress of the British power in Hindos- 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. liii 

tan, and a man who also had a strong intellectual antipathy to the 
mind of Burke. In making the speech, Burke had documentary 
evidence of a large portion of the transactions he denounced, and had 
divined the rest. Mill supports him both as regards the facts of 
which Burke had positive knowledge, and the facts which he deduc- 
tively inferred from the facts he knew. Having thus a strong founda- 
tion for his argument, he exerted every faculty of his mind, and every 
impulse of his moral sentiment and moi'al passion, to overwhelm the 
leading members of the administration of Pitt, by attemj)ting to make 
them accomplices in crimes Avhich would disgrace even slave-traders 
on the Guinea coast. The merely intellectual force of his reasoning is 
crushing ; his analysis seems to be sharpened by his hatred ; and there 
is no device of contempt, scorn, derision, and direct personal attack, 
which he does not unsparingly use. In the midst of all tliis mental 
tumult, inestimable maxims of moral and political wisdom are shot 
forth in short sentences, which have so much of the sting and bril- 
liancy of epigram, that at first we do not appreciate their depth of 
thought ; and through all there burns such a pitiless fierceness of 
moral reprobation of cruelty, injustice, and wrong, that all the accred- 
ited courtesies of debate are violated, once, at least, in every five 
minutes. In any American legislative assembly he would have been 
called to order at least once in five minutes. The images which the 
orator brings in to give vividness to his argument are sometimes 
coarse ; but, coarse as they are, they admirably reflect the moral tur- 
pitude of the men against whom he inveighs. Among these is the 
image with which he covers Dundas, the special friend of Pitt, with a 
ridicule which promises to be immortal. Dundas, on the occasion 
when Fox and Burke called for papers by the aid of which they pro- 
posed to demonstrate the iniquity of the scheme by which the minis- 
tiy proposed to settle the debts of the Nabob of Arcot, pretended that 
the production of such papers would be indelicate, — " that this inquiry 
is of a delicate nature, and that the state will suffer detriment by the 
exposure of this transaction." As Dundas had previously brought out 
six volumes of Reports, generally confirming Burke's own views of the 
corruption and oppression which marked the administration of affairs 
in India, he laid himself open to Bui'ke's celebrated assault. Dunchis 
and delicacy, he said, were " a rare and singular coalition." And tlien 
follows an image of colossal coarseness, such as might be supposed 
capable of rousing thunder-peals of laugliter from a company of fes- 
tive giants, — an image which Lord Brougham deehared offended Ins 
sensitive taste, — the sensitive taste of one of the most formidable 



liv . DANIEL WEBSTER 

legal and legislative bullies that ever appeared before the juries or 
Parliament of Great Britain, and who never hesitated to use any 
illustration, however vulgar, which he thought would be effective to 
degrade his opponents. 

But whatever may be thought of the indelicacy of Burke's image, 
it was one eminently adapted to penetrate through the thick hide of 
the minister of state at whom it Avas aimed, and it shamed him as far 
as a profligate politician like Dundas was capable of feeling the sen- 
sation of shame. But there are also flashes, or rather flames, of impas- 
sioned imagination, in the same speech, which rush up from the main 
body of its statements and arguments, and remind us of nothing so 
much as of those jets of incandescent gas which, we are told by 
astronomers, occasionally leap, from the extreme outer covering of the 
sun, to the height of a hundred or a hundred and sixty thousand 
miles, and testify to the terrible forces raging within it. After read- 
ing this speech for the fiftieth time, the critic cannot free himself from 
the rapture of admiration and amazement which he experienced in his 
first fresh acquaintance with it. Yet its delivery in the House of 
Commons (February 28, 1785) produced an effect so slight, that Pitt, 
after a few minutes' consultation with Grenville, concluded that it was 
not worth the trouble of being answered ; and the House of Commons, 
obedient to the Prime Minister's direction, negatived, by a large 
majority, the motion in advocating which Burke poured out the 
wonderful treasures of his intellect and imagination. To be sure, the 
House was tired to death with the discussion, was probably very 
sleepy, and the orator spoke five hours after the members had already 
shouted, " Question ! Question ! " 

The truth is, that this speech, unmatched though it is in the litera- 
ture of eloquence, had not, as has been previously stated, the air of 
reality. It struck the House as a magnificent Oriental dream, as an 
Arabian Nights' Entertainment, as a tale told by an inspired madman, 
" full of sound and fury, signifying nothing " ; and the evident par- 
tisan intention of the orator to blast Pitt's administration by exhibit- 
ing its complicity in one of the most enormous frauds recorded in 
history, confirmed the dandies, the cockneys, the bankers, and the 
country gentlemen, who, as members of the House of Commons, stood 
by Pitt Avith all the combined force of their levity, their venality, 
and their stupidity, in the propriety of voting Burke down. And 
though now, Avhen the substantial truth of all the facts he alleged is 
established on evidence which convinces historians, the admiring 
reader can understand why it failed to convince Burke's contempo- 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. Iv 

raries, and why it still appears to lack the characteristics of a speech 
thoroughly organized. Indeed, the mind of Burke, when it was de- 
livered, can only be compared to a volcanic mountain in eruption ; — ■ 
not merely a volcano like that of Vesuvius, visited by scientists and 
amateurs in crowds, when it deigns to pour forth its flames and lava 
for the entertainment of the multitude ; but a lonely volcano, like 
that of Etna, rising far above Vesuvius in height, far removed from 
all the vulgar curiosity of a body of tourists, but rending the earth on 
which it stands with the mighty earthquake throes of its fiery centre 
and heart. The moral passion, — perhaps it would be more just to 
say the moral fury, — displayed in the speech, is elemental, and can be 
compared to nothing less intense than the earth's interior fire and 
heat. 

Now in Webster's great legislative efforts, his mind is never exhib- 
ited in a state of eruption. In the most excited debates in which he 
bore a prominent part, nothing strikes us more than the admirable 
self-possession, than the majestic inward calm, which presides over all 
the operations of his mind and the impulses of his sensibility, so that, 
in building up the fabric of his speech, he has his reason, imagination, 
and passion under full control, — using each faculty and feeling as the 
occasion may demand, but never allowing himself to be used by it, — 
and always therefore conveying the impression of power in reserve, 
while he may, in fact, be exercising all the power he has to the 
utmost. In laboriously erecting his edifice of reasoning he also studi- 
ously regards the intellects and the passions of ordinary men ; strives 
to bring his mind into coi'dial relations with theirs ; employs every 
faculty he possesses to give reality, to give even visibility, to his 
thoughts ; and though he never made a speech which rivals that of 
Burke on the Nabob of Arcot's Debts, in respect to grasp of under- 
standing, astounding wealth of imagination and depth of moral passion, 
he always so contrived to organize his materials into a complete whole, 
that the result stood out clearly to the sight of the mind, as a structure 
resting on strong foundations, and reared to due height by the mingled 
skill of the artisan and the artist. When he does little more than 
weld his materials together, he is still an artificer of the old school of 
giant workmen, the school that dates its pedigree from Tubal Cain. 

After all this wearisome detail and dilution of the idea attempted 
to be expressed, it may be that I have failed to convey an adequate 
impression of what constitutes Webster's distinction among orators, as 
far as orators have left speeches which are considered an invaluable 
addition to the literature of the language in which they were origi- 



Ivi DANIEL WEBSTER 

nally delivered. Everybody understands why any one of tte great 
sermons of Jeremy Taylor, or the sermon of Dr. South on "Man 
created in the Image of God," or the sermon of Dr. Barrow on 
" Heavenly Rest," differs from the millions on millions of doubtless 
edifying sermons that have been preached and printed during the 
last two centuries and a half ; but everybody does not understand the 
distinction between one brilliant oration and another, when both/ 
made a great sensation at the time, while only one survived in litera- 
ture. Probably Charles James Fox was a more effective speaker in 
the House of Commons than Edmund Burke ; probably Henry Clay 
was a more effective speaker in Congress than Daniel Webster ; but 
when the occasions on which their speeches were made are found 
gradually to fade from the memory of men, why is it that the 
speeches of Fox and Clay have no recognized position in literature, 
while those of Burke and Webster are ranked with literary produc- 
tions of the first class ? The reason is as really obvious as that which 
explains the exceptional value of some of the efforts of the great 
orators of the pulpit. Jeremy Taylor, Dr. South, and Dr. Barrow, 
different as they were in temper and disposition, succeeded in " organ- 
izing" some masterpieces in their special department of intellectual 
and moral activity ; and the same is true of Burke and Webster in 
the departments of legislation and political science. The " occasion " 
was merely an opportunity for the consolidation into a speech of the 
rare powers and attainments, the large personality and affluent 
thought, which were the spiritual possessions of the man who made 
it, — a speech which represented the whole intellectual manhood of 
the speaker, — a manhood in which knowledge, reason, imagination, 
and sensibility were all consolidated under the directing power of 
will. 

A pertinent example of the difference we have attempted to in- 
dicate may be easily found in contrasting Fox's closing speech on 
the East India Bill with Burke's on the same subject. For imme- 
diate effect on the House of Commons, it ranks with the most mas- 
terly of Fox's Parliamentary efforts. The hits on his opponents were 
all " telling." The argumentum ad hominem, embodied in short, 
sharp statements, or startling interrogatories, was never employed 
with more brilliant success. The reasoning was rapid, compact, en- 
cumbered by no long enumeration of facts, and, though somewhat 
unscrupulous here and there, was driven home upon his adversaries 
with a skill that equalled its audacity. It may be said that there is 
not a sentence in the whole speech which was not calculated to sting 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. IvH 

a sleepy audience into attention, or to give delight to a fatigued 
audience which still managed to keep its eyes and minds wide open. 
Even in respect to the principles of liberty and justice, which were 
the animating life of the bill, Fox's terse sentences contrast strangely 
with the somewhat more lumbering and elaborate paragraphs of 
Burke. " What," he exclaims, putting his argument in his favorite 
interrogative form, — "what is the most odious species of tyranny? 
Precisely that which this bill is meant to annihilate. That a hand- 
ful of men, free themselves, should exercise the most base and abomi- 
nable despotism over millions of their fellow-creatures ; that innocence 
should be the victim of oppression ; that industry should toil for 
rapine ; that the harmless laborer should sweat, not for his own bene- 
fit, but for the luxury and rapacity of tyrannic depredation ; — in a 
word, that thirty millions of men, gifted by Providence with the 
ordinary endowments of humanity, should groan under a system of 
despotism unmatched in all the histories of the world ? What is the 
end of all government ? Certainly, the happiness of the governed. 
Others may hold different opinions ; but this is mine, and I proclaim 
it. What, then, are we to think of a government w-hose good fortune 
is supposed to spring from the calamities of its subjects, whose aggran- 
dizement grows out of the miseries of mankind? This is the kind 
of government exercised under the East Indian Company upon the 
natives of Hindostan ; and the subversion of that infamous govern- 
ment is the main object of the bill in question." And afterwards he 
says, with admirable point and pungency of statement : " Every line 
in both the bills which I have had the honor to introduce, presumes 
the possibility of bad administration ; for every word breathes sus- 
picion. This bill supposes that men are but men. It confides in no 
integrity ; it trusts no character ; it inculcates the wisdom of a jealousy 
of power, and annexes responsibility, not only to every action, but 
even to the inaction of those who are to dispense it. The necessity of 
these provisions must be evident, when it is known that the different 
misfortunes of the company have resulted not more from what their 
servants did, than from what the masters did not.^'' 

There is a directness in such sentences as these which we do not 
find in Burke's speech on the East India Bill ; but Burke's remains as 
a part of English literature, and in form and substance, especially in 
substance, is so immensely superior to that of Fox, that, in quoting 
sentences from the latter, one may almost be supposed to rescue them 
from that neglect which attends all speeches which do not reach 
beyond the occasion which calls them forth. In Bacon's phrase, the 



Iviii DANIEL WEBSTER 

speech of Fox shows " small matter, and infinite agitation of wit " ; 
in Burke's, we discern large matter with an abundance of "wit" 
proper to the discussion of the matter, but nothing which suggests 
the idea of mere " agitation." Fox, in his speeches, subordinated every - 
thing to the immediate impression he might make on the House of! 
Commons, He deliberately gave it as his opinion, that a speech 
that read well must be a bad speech ; and, in a literary sense, the 
House of Commons, which he entered before he was twenty, may be 
called both the cradle and the grave of his fame. It has been said 
that he was a debater whose speeches should be studied by evei'y man 
who wishes " to learn the science of logical defence " ; that he alone, 
among English orators, resembles Demosthenes, inasmuch as his 
reasoning is " penetrated and made red-hot by passion " ; and that 
nothing could excel the effect of his delivery when " he was in the full 
paroxysm of inspiration, foaming, screaming, choked by the rushing 
multitude of his words." But not one of his speeches, not even that 
on the East India Bill, or on the Westminster Scrutiny, or on the 
Russian Armament, or on Parliamentary Reform, or on Mr. Pitt's 
Rejection of Bonaparte's Overtures for Peace, has obtained an abiding 
place in the literature of Great Britain. It would be no disparage- 
ment to an educated man, if it were said that he had never read these 
speeches ; but it would be a serious bar to his claim to be considered 
an English scholar, if he confessed to be ignorant of the great speeches 
of Burke; for such a confession would be like admitting that he had 
never read the first book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Bacon's 
Essays and Advancement of Learning, Milton's Areopagitica, Butler's 
Analogy, and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. 

When we reflect on the enormous number of American speeches 
which, when they were first delivered, were confidently predicted, by 
appreciating friends, to insure to the orators a fame which would be 
immortal, one wonders a little at the quiet persistence of the speeches 
of Webster in refusing to die with the abrupt suddenness of other 
orations, which, at the time of their delivery, seemed to have an equal 
chance of renown. The lifeless remains of such unfortunate failures 
are now entombed in that dreariest of all mausoleums, the dingy 
quarto volumes, hateful to all human eyes, which are lettered on the 
back with the title of "Congressional Debates," — a collection of 
printed matter which members of Congress are wont to send to a favored 
few among their constituents, and which are immediately consigned to 
the dust-barrel or sold to pedlers in waste paper, according as the rage 
of the recipients takes a scornful or an economical direction. It would 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. lix 

seem that tlie speeches of Webster are saved from this fate, by the fact 
that, in them, the mental and moral life of a great man, and of a 
great master of the English language, are organized in a palpable intel- 
lectual form. The reader feels that they have some of the substantial 
qualities which he recognizes in looking at the gigantic constructions 
of the master workmen among the crowd of the world's engineers and 
architects, in looking at the organic pi'oducts of Nature herself, and 
in surveying, through the eye of his imagination, those novel repro- 
ductions of Nature which great poets have embodied in works which 
are indelibly stamped with the character of deathlessness. 

But Webster is even more obviously a poet — subordinating "the 
shows of things to the desires of the mind" — in his magnificent ideal- 
I ization, or idolization, of the Constitution and the Union. By the magic 
of his imagination and sensibility he contrived to impress on the minds 
of a majority of the peoj^le of the free States a vague, grand idea that 
the Constitution was a sacred instrument of government, — a holy shrine 
of fundamental law, which no unhallowed hands could touch without 
profanation, — a digested system of rights and duties, resembling 
those institutes which were, in early times, devised by the immortal 
gods for the guidance of infirm mortal man ; and the mysterious 
creatures, half divine and half human, who framed this remarkable 
document, were always reverently referred to as " the Fathers," — as 
persons who excelled all succeeding generations in sagacity and wis- 
dom ; as inspired prophets, who were specially selected by Divine 
Providence to frame the political scriptures on which our political 
faith was to be based, and by which our political reason was to be 
limited. The splendor of the glamour thus cast over the imagi- 
nations and sentiments of the people was all the more effective be- 
cause it was an effluence from the mind of a statesman avIio, of all 
other statesmen of the country, was deemed the most practical, and 
the least deluded by any misguiding lights of fancy and abstract 
speculation. 

There can be little doubt that Webster's impressive idealization of 
the Constitution gave a certain narrowness to American thinking on 
constitutional government and the science of politics and legislation. 
Foreigners, of the most liberal views, could not sometimes restrain an 
expression of wonder, when they found that our most intelligent men, 
even our jurists and publicists, hardly condescended to notice the 
eminent European thinkers on the philosophy of government, so 
absorbed were they in the contemplation of the perfection of their 
own. When the great civil war broke out, hundreds of thousands of 



Ix DANIEL WEBSTER 

American citizens marched to the battle-field with the grand passages 
of Webster glowing in their hearts. They met death cheerfully in 
the cause of the " Constitution and Union," as by him expounded and 
idealized ; and if they were so unfortunate as not to be killed, but 
to be taken captive, they still rotted to death in Southern prisons, 
sustained by sentences of Webster's speeches which they had de- 
claimed as boys in their country schools. Of all the triumphs of 
Webster as a leader of public opinion, the most remarkable was his 
infusing into the minds of the people of the free States the belief 
that the Constitution as it existed in his time was an organic fact, 
springing from the intelligence, hearts, and wills of the people of the 
United States, and not, as it really was, an ingenious mechanical con- 
trivance of wdse men, to which the people, at the time, gave their 
assent. 

The constitutions of the separate States of the Union were doubt- 
less rooted in the habits, sentiments, and ideas of their inhabitants. 
But the Constitution of the United States could not possess this 
advantage, however felicitously it may have been framed for the pur- 
pose of keeping, for a considerable period, peace between the different 
sections of tlie country. As long, therefore, as the institution of negro 
slavery lasted, it could not be called a Constitution of States organi- 
cally " United " ; for it lacked the principle of growth^ which charac- 
terizes all constitutions of government which are really adapted to the 
progressive needs of a people, if the people have in them any impulse \ 
which stimulates them to advance. The unwritten constitution of 
Great Britain has this advantage, that a decree of Parliament can alter 
the whole representative system, annihilating by a vote of the two 
houses all laws which the Parliament had enacted in former years. 
In Great Britain, therefore, a measure which any Imperial Parliament 
passes becomes at once the supreme law of the land, though it may 
nullify a great number of laws which previous Parliaments had passed 
under different conditions of the sentiment of the nation. Our Con- 
stitution, on the other hand, provides for the contingencies of growth 
in the public sentiment only by amendments to the Constitution. 
These amendments require more than a majority of all the political 
forces represented in Congress; and Mr. Calhoun, foreseeing that a 
collision must eventually occur between the two sections, carried with 
him, not only the South, but a considerable minority of the North, in 
resisting any attempt to limit the extension of slavery. On this point 
the passions and principles of the people of the slave-holding and the 
majority of the people of the non-slave-holding States came into violent 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. Ixi 

opposition ; and there was no possibility that any amendment to the 
Constitution could be ratified, which would represent either the 
growth of the Southern people in their ever-increasing belief that 
negro slavery was not only a good in itself, but a good which ought to 
be extended, or the growth of the Northern people in their ever- 
increasing hostility both to slavery and its extension. Thus two 
principles, each organic in its nature, and demanding indefinite devel- 
opment, came into deadly conflict under the mechanical forms of a 
Constitution which was not organic. 

A considerable portion of the speeches in this volume is devoted to 
denunciations of violations of the Constitution perpetrated by Web- 
ster's political opponents. These violations, again, would seem to 
prove that written constitutions follow practically the same law of 
development which marks the progress of the unwritten. By a 
strained system of Congressional interpretation, the Constitution 
has been repeatedly compelled to yield to the necessities of the 
party dominant, for the time, in the government; and has, if we 
may believe Webster, been repeatedly changed without being con- 
stitutionally " amended." The causes which led to the most terri- 
ble civil war recorded in history were silently working beneath 
the forms of the Constitution, — both parties, by the way, appeal- 
ing to its provisions, — while Webster was idealizing it as the utmost 
which humanity could come to in the way of civil government. In 
1848, when nearly all Europe was in insurrection against its rulers, 
he proudly said that our Constitution promised to be the oldest, as well 
as the best, in civilized states. Meanwhile the institution of negro 
slavery was undermining the whole fabric of the Union. The moral 
division between the South and North was widening into a division 
between the religion of the two sections. The Southern statesmen, 
economists, jurists, publicists, and ethical writers had adapted their 
opinions to the demands which the defenders of the institution of 
slavery imposed on the action of the human intellect and conscience ; 
but it was rather startling to discover that the Christian religion, as 
taught in the Southern States, was a religion which had no vital con- 
nection with the Christianity taught in the Northern States. There 
is nothing more astounding, to a patient explorer of the causes which 
led to the final explosion, than this opposition of religions. The 
mere form of the dogmas common to the religion of both sections 
might be verbally identical ; but a volume of sermons by a Southern 
doctor of divinity, as far as he touched on the matter of slavery, was 
as different from one published by his Northern brother, in the essen- 



Ixii DANIEL WEBSTER 

tial moral and humane elements of Christianity, as though they were 
divided from each other by a gulf as wide as that which yawns between 
a Druid priest and a Christian clergyman. 

The politicians of the South, whether they were the mouthpieces 
of the ideas and passions of their constituents, or were, as Webster 
probably thought, more or less responsible for their foolishness and 
bitterness, were ever eager to precipitate a conflict, which Webster 
was as eager to prevent, or at least to postpone. It was fortunate for 
the North, that the inevitable conflict did not come in 1850, when the 
free States were unprepared for it. Ten years of discussion and prep- 
aration were allowed ; when the war broke out, it found the North in 
a position to meet and eventually to overcome the enemies of the 
Union ; and the Constitution, not as it was, but as it is, now represents 
a form of government which promises to be permanent ; for after 
passing through its baptism of fire and blood, the Constitution con- 
tains nothing which is not in harmony with any State government 
founded on the principle of equal rights which it guarantees, and is 
proof against all attacks but those which may proceed from the 
extremes of human folly and wickedness. But that, before the civil 
war, it was preserved so long under conditions which constantly 
threatened it with destruction, is due in a considerable degree to the 
circumstance that it found in Daniel Webster its poet as well as its 
" expounder.'* 

In conclusion it ma.j be said that the style of Webster is pre-emi- 
nently distinguished by manliness. Nothing little, weak, whining, or 
sentimental can be detected in any page of the six volumes of his works. 
A certain strength and grandeur of personality is prominent in all his 
speeches. When he says " I," or " my," he never appears to indulge in 
the bravado of self-assertion, because the Avords are felt to express a posi- 
tive, stalwart, almost colossal manhood, which had already been implied 
in the close-knit sentences in which he embodied his statements and 
arguments. He is an eminent instance of the power Avhich character 
communicates to style. Thougli evidently proud, self-respecting, and 
higli-spirited, he is ever above mere vanity and egotism. Whenever 
he gives emphasis to the personal pronoun the reader feels that he had 
as much earned the right to make his opinion an authority, as he had 
earned the right to use the words he employs to express his ideas and 
sentiments. Thus, in the celebrated Smith Will trial, his antagonist, 
Mr. Choate, quoted a decision of Lord Chancellor Camden. In his 
reply, Webster argued against its validity as though it were merely a 
proposition laid down by Mr. Choate. " But it is not mine, it is Lord 



AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. Ixiii 

Camden's," was the instant retort. Webster paused for half a minute, 
and then, with his eye fixed on the presiding judge, he replied : " Lord 
Camden was a great judge ; he is respected by every American, for 
he was on our side in the Revolution ; but, may it please your honor, 
/differ from my Lord Camden." There was hardly a lawyer in the 
United States who could have made such a statement without exposing 
liimself to ridicule ; but it did not seem at all ridiculous, when the 
" I " stood for Daniel Webster. In his early career as a lawyer, his 
mode of reasoning was such as to make him practically a thirteenth 
juror in the panel ; when his fame was fully established, he contrived, 
in some mysterious way, to seat himself by the side of the judges on 
the bench, and appear to be consulting with them as a jurist, rather 
than addressing them as an advocate. The personality of the man 
was always suppressed until there seemed to be need of asserting it ; 
and then it was proudly pushed into prominence, though rarely 
passing beyond the limits which his acknowledged eminence as a 
statesman and lawyer did not justify him in asserting it. Among 
the selections in the present volume where his individuality becomes 
somewhat aggressive, and breaks loose from the restraints ordinarily 
self-imposed on it, may be mentioned his speech on his Reception at 
Boston (1842), his Marshfield Speech (1848), and his speech at his 
Reception at Buffalo (1851). Whatever may be thought of the 
course of argument pursued in these, they are at least thoi-oughly 
penetrated with a manly spirit, — a manliness somewhat haughty and 
defiant, but still consciously strong in its power to return blow for 
blow, from whatever quarter the assault may come. 

But the real intellectual and moral manliness of Webster underlies 
all his great orations and speeches, even those where the animating 
life which gives them the power to persuade, convince, and uplift the 
reader's mind, seems to be altogether impersonal ; and this plain force 
of manhood, this sturdy grapple with every question that comes before 
his understanding for settlement, leads him contemptuously to reject 
all the meretricious aids and ornaments of mere rhetoric, and is 
prominent, among the many exceptional qualities of his large nature, 
which have given him a high position among the prose-writers of his 
country as a consummate master of English style. 



THE GREAT ORATIONS AND SPEECHES 



OF 



DANIEL WEBSTER. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT 
WASHINGTON, ON THE lOni OF MARCH, 1818. 



[The action, The Trustees of Dartmouth 
College I'. William H. Woodward, was com- 
menced in the Court of Common Pleas, 
Grafton County, State of New Hampshire, 
February term, 1817. The declaration was 
trover for the books of record, original 
charter, common seal, and other corporate 
property of the College. Tlie conversion 
was alleged to have been made on the 7tli 
day of October, 1816. The proper pleas 
were filed, and by consent the cause was 
carried directly to the Superior Court of 
New Hampshire, by appeal, and entered at 
tlie May term, 1817. The general issue 
was pleaded by the defendant, and joined 
by the plaintiffs. The facts in the case 
were then agreed upon by the parties, and 
drawn up in the form of a special verdict, 
reciting the charter of the College and the 
acts of the legislature of the State, passed 
June and December, 1816, by which the 
said corporation of Dartmouth College was 
cnlanied and improved, and the said charter 
amended. 

The question made in tlie case was, 
wliether tiiose acts of the legislature were 
valid and binding upon the corporation, 
without their accei)tance or assent, and not 
repugnant to tiie Constitution of the United 
States. If so, the verdict found for the 
defendants ; otherwise, it found for the 
plaintiffs. 

The cause was continued to the Sep- 
tember term of the court in Rockingham 
County, where it was argued ; and at the 
November term of the same year, in Grafton 
County, tlie opinion of the court was deliv- 
ered by Chief Justice Richardson, in favor 
of theValidity and constitutionality of the 
acts of the legislature; and judgment was 
accordingly entered for the defendant on 
the special verdict. 



Thereupon a writ of error was sued out 
by the original plaintiffs, to remove the 
cause to the Supreme Court of the United 
States ; where it was entered at the term of 
the court holden at Washington on the first 
Monday of February, 1818. 

The cause came on for argument on the 
10th day of March, 1818, before all the 
judges. It was argued by Mr. Webster and 
Mr. Ilopkinson for the plaintiffs in error, 
and by Mr. Holmes and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral (Wirt) for the defendant in error. 

At tlie term of the court holden m Febru- 
ary, 1819, the opinion of the judges was de- 
livered by Chief Justice Marshall, declaring 
the acts of the legislature unconstitutional 
and invalid, and reversing the judgment of 
the State Court. The court, with the ex- 
ception of Mr. Justice Duvali, were unani- 
mous. 

The following was the argument of Mr. 
Webster for the plaintiffs in error.] 

The general question is, whether the 
acts of the legislature of New Hamp- 
shire of the 27th of June, and of the 
18th and 26th of December, 1816, are 
valid and binding on the plaintiffs, with- 
out their acceptance or assent. 

The charter of 1769 created and estab- 
lished a corporation, to consist of twelve 
persons, and no more; to be called the 
" Trustees of Dartmouth College." The 
preamble to the charter recites, that it is 
granted on tlie application and request 
of the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock: That Dr. 
Wheelock, about the year 1754, estab- 
li.shed a charity school, at his own ex- 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



pen$e, and on his own estate and plan- 
tation : Tliat for several years, through 
the assistance of well-disposed persons 
in America, granted at his solicitation, 
he had clothed, maintained, and edu- 
cated a number of native Indians, and 
employed them afterwards as mission- 
aries and schoolmasters among the sav- 
age tribes : That, his design promising 
to be useful, he had constituted the Rev. 
Mr. Whitaker to be his attorney, with 
power to solicit contributions, in Eng- 
land, for the further extension and car- 
rying on of his undertaking ; and that 
he had requested the Earl of Dartmouth, 
Baron Smith, INIr. Thornton, and other 
gentlemen, to receive such sums as might 
be contributed, in England, towards 
supporting liis school, and to be trustees 
thereof, for his charity ; which these 
persons had agreed to do : That there- 
upon Dr. Wheelock had executed to 
them a deed of trust, in pursuance of 
such agreement between him and them, 
and, for divers good reasons, had re- 
ferred it to these persons to determine 
the place in which the school should be 
finally established : And, to enable them 
to form a proper decision on this subject, 
had laid before them the several offers 
which had been made to hini by the sev- 
eral governments in America, in order 
to induce him to settle and establish his 
school within the limits of such govern- 
ments for their own emolument, and the 
increase of learning in their respective 
places, as well as for the furtherance of 
his general original design : And inas- 
much as a number of the proprietors of 
lands in New Hampshire, animated by 
the example of the Governor himself 
and others, and in consideration that, 
without any impediment to its original 
design, the school might be enlarged and 
improved, to promote learning among 
the English, and to supply ministers to 
the people of that Province, had prom- 
ised large tracts of land, provided the 
school should be established in that 
Province, the persons before mentioned, 
having weighed the reasons in favor of 
the several places proposed, had given 
the preference to this Province, and these 
offers : That Dr. Wheelock therefore 



represented the necessity of a legal in- 
corporation, and proposed that certain 
gentlemen in America, whom he had 
already named and appointed in his will 
to be trustees of his charity after his de- 
cease, should comjxjse the corjxiration. 
Uj)on this recital, and in consideration 
of the laudable original design of Dr. 
Wheelock, and willing that the best 
means of education be established in 
New Hampshire, for the benefit of the 
Province, the king granted the chai'ter, 
by the advice of his Provincial Council. 

The substance of the facts thus re- 
cited is, that Dr. W^heelock had founded 
a charity, on funds owned and procured 
by himself ; that he was at that time 
the sole dispenser and sole administra- 
tor, as well as the legal owner, of these 
funds ; that he had made his will, de- 
vising this property in trust, to continue 
the existence and uses of the school, and 
appointed trustees ; that, in this state of 
things, he had been invited to fix his 
school permanently in New Hampshire, 
and to extend the design of it to the 
education of the youth of that Province ; 
that before he removed his school, or ac- 
cepted this invitation, which his friends 
in England had advised him to accept, 
he applied for a charter, to be granted, 
not to whomsoever the king or govern- 
ment of the Province should please, but 
to such persons as he named and ap- 
pointed, namely, the persons whom he 
had already appointed to be the future 
trustees of his charity by his will. 

The charter, or letters patent, then 
proceed to create such a corporation, and 
to appoint twelve persons to constitute 
it, by the name of the " Trustees of 
Dartmouth College"; to have perpetual 
existence as such corporation, and with 
power to hold and dispose of lands and 
goods, for the use of the college, with 
all the ordinary powers of corporations. 
They are in their discretion to apply the 
funds and property of the college to the 
support of the president, tutors, minis- 
ters, and other officers of the college, 
and such missionaries and schoolmasters 
as they may see fit to employ among the 
Indians. There ai'e to be twelve trustees 
for ever, and no more ; and they are to have 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



the right of filling vacancies occurring'in 
their own body. The Rev. Mr. Wlieelock 
is declared to be the founder of the col- 
lege, and is, by the charter, appointed 
first president, with power to appoint a 
successor by his last will. All proper 
powers of government, superintendence, 
and visitation are vested in the trustees. 
They are to appoint and remove all 
officers at tlu'ir discretion; to fix their 
salaries, and assign their duties; and to 
make all ordinances, orders, and laws 
for the government of the students. To 
the end that the persons who had acted 
as depositaries of the contributions in 
England, and who had also been con- 
tributors themselves, might be satisfied 
of the good use of their contributions, 
the president was annually, or when re- 
quired, to transmit to them an account 
of the progress of the institution and the 
disbursements of its funds, so long as 
they should continue to act in that trust. 
These letters patent are to be good and 
effectual, in law, against the king, his 
heirs and successors for ever, without 
further grant or confirmation; and the 
trustees are to hold all and singular 
these privileges, advantages, liberties, 
and innuunities to them and to their 
successors for ever. 

No funds are given to the college by 
this charter. A corporate existence and 
capacity are given to the trustees, with 
the privileges and immunities which 
have been mentioned, to enable the 
founder and his associates the better to 
manage the funds which they themselves 
had contributed, and such others as they 
might afterwards obtain. 

After the institution thus created and 
constituted had existed, uninterruptedly 
and usefully, nearly fifty years, the legis- 
lature of New Hampshire passed the 
acts in question. 

The first act makes the twelve trustees 
under the charter, and nine other indi- 
viduals, to be appointed by the Governor 
and Council, a corporation, by a new 
name ; and to this new corporation trans- 
fers all the properly, rights, poioers, liber- 
ties, and privileges of the old corporation ; 
with further power to establish new 
colleges and an institute, and to apply 



all or any part of the funds to these 
purposes; subject to the power and con- 
trol of a board of twenty-five overseers, 
to be appointed by the Governor and 
Council. 

The second act makes further pro- 
visions for executing the objects of the 
first, and the last act autliorizes the de- 
fendant, the treasurer of the plaintiffs, to 
retain and hold their property, against 
their will. 

If these acts are valid, the old corpora- 
tion is abolished, and a new one created. 
The first act does, in fact, if it can have 
any effect, create a new corporation, and 
transfer to it all the property and fran- 
chises of the old. The two corporations 
are not the same in anything which es- 
sentially belongs to the existence of a 
corporation. They have different names, 
and different powei's, rights, and duties. 
Their organization is wholly different. 
The powei's of the corporation are not 
vested in the same, or similar hands. 
In one, the trustees are twelve, and no 
more. In the other, they are twenty- 
one. In one, the power is in a single 
board. In the other, it is divided be- 
tween two boards. Although the act 
professes to include the old trustees in 
the new corporation, yet that was with- 
out their assent, and against their re- 
monstrance ; and no person can be com- 
pelled to be a member of such a corporsi- 
tion against his will. It was neither 
expected nor intended that they should 
be members of the new corporation. 
The act itself treats the old corporation 
as at an end, and, going on the ground 
that all its functions have ceased, it pro- 
vides for the first meeting and organiza- 
tion of the new corporation. It express- 
ly provides, also, that the new corpora- 
tion shall have and hold all tiie property 
of the old; a provision which would be 
quite unnecessary upon any other ground, 
than that the old corporation was dis- 
solved. But if it could be contended 
that the effect of these acts was not en- 
tirely to abolish the old corporation, yet 
it is manifest that they impair and in- 
vade the rights, property, and powers of 
tlie trustees under the charter, as a cor- 
poration, and the legal rights, privileges, 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



and immunities which belong to them, 
as individual members of the corporation. 

The twelve trustees were the sole legal 
owners of all the property acquired un- 
der the charter. By the acts, others are 
admitted, against their will, to be joint 
owners. The twelve individuals who are 
trustees were possessed of all the fran- 
chises and immunities conferred by the 
charter. By the acts, nine other trustees 
and twentij-Jive overseers are admitted, 
against their will, to divide these fran- 
chises and immunities with them. 

If, either as a corporation or as indi- 
■viduals, they have any legal rights, this 
forcible intrusion of others violates those 
rights, as manifestly as an entii-e and 
complete ouster and dispossession. These 
acts alter the whole constitution of the 
corporation. They affect the rights of 
the wliole body as a corporation, and the 
rights of the individuals who compose 
it. They revoke corporate pow'ers and 
franchises. They alienate and transfer 
the property of the college to others. By 
the charter, the trustees had a right to 
fill vacancies in their own number. This 
is now' taken away. They were to con- 
sist of twelve, and, by express provision, 
of no more. This is altered. They and 
their successors, appointed by them- 
selves, were for ever to hold the prop- 
erty. The legislature has found suc- 
cessors for them, before their seats are 
vacant. The powers and privileges 
which the twelve were to exercise exclu- 
sively, are now to be exercised by others. 
By one of the acts, they afe subjected to 
heavy penalties if they exercise their 
offices, or any of those powers and privi- 
leges granted them by charter, and which 
they had exercised for fifty years. They 
are to be punished for not accepting the 
new grant and taking its benefits. This, 
it must be confessed, is rather a sum- 
mary mode of settling a question of con- 
stitutional right. Not only are new^ 
trustees forced into the corporation, but 
new trusts and uses are created. The 
college is turned into a university. Power 
is given to create new colleges, and, to 
authorize any diversion of the funds 
which may be agreeable to the new- 
boards, sufficient latitude is given by 



the undefined power of establishing an 
institute. To these new colleges, and 
this institute, the funds contributed by 
the founder. Dr. ^Vlieelock, and by the 
original donors, the Earl of Dartmouth 
and others, are to be applied, in plain 
and manifest disregard of the uses to 
which they were given. 

The president, one of the old trustees, 
had a right to his office, salary, and 
emoluments, subject to the twelve trus- 
tees alone. His title to these is now 
changed, and he is made accountable to 
new masters. So also all the professors 
and tutors. If the legislature can at 
pleasure make these alterations and 
changes in the rights and privileges of 
the plaintiffs, it may, -with equal pro- 
priety, abolish these rights and privi- 
leges altogether. The same power which 
can do any part of this work can accom- 
plish the whole. And, indeed, the ar- 
gument on which these acts have been 
hitherto defended goes altogether on the 
ground, that this is such a corporation 
as the legislatm-e may abolish at pleas- 
ure ; and that its members have no ricjhts, 
liberties, franchises, property, or priviler/es, 
which the legislatm-e may not revoke, 
annul, alienate, or transfer to others, 
whenever it sees fit. 

It will be contended by the plaintiffs, 
that these acts are not valid and binding 
on them without their assent, — 

1. Because they are against common 
right, and the Constitution of New 
Hampshire. 

2. Because they are repugnant to the 
Constitution of the United States. 

I am aware of the limits which bound 
the jurisdiction of the coiu-t in this case, 
and that on this record nothing can be 
decided but the single question, whether 
these acts are repugnant to the Consti- 
tution of the United States. Yet it may 
assist in forming an oj)inion of their 
true nature and character to compare 
them with those fundamejital principles 
introduced into the State governments 
for the purpose of limiting the exercise 
of the legislative power, and which the 
Constitution of New Hampshire ex- 
presses with great fulness and accu- 
racy. 



I 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



It is not too much to assert, that the 
legislature of Xew Hampshire would not 
have been competent to pass the acts in 
question, and to make them binding on 
the plaintiffs without their assent, even 
if there had been, in the Constitution of 
Kew Hampshire, or of the United States, 
no special restriction on their power, be- 
cause these acts are not the exercise of a 
power properly legislative.^ Their effect 
and object are to take away, from one, 
rights, property, and franchises, and to 
grant them to another. This is not the 
exercise of a legislative power. To jus- 
tify the taking away of vested rights 
there must be a forfeiture, to adjudge 
upon and declare which is the proper 
province of the judiciary. Attainder and 
confiscation are acts of sovereign power, 
not acts of legislation. The British Par- 
liament, among other unlimited pow- 
ers, claims that of altering and vacating 
chartei-s ; not as an act of ordinary legis- 
lation, but of unconta-olled authority. 
It is theoretically omnipotent. Yet, in 
modern times, it has very rarely at- 
tempted the exercise of this power. Li 
a celebrated instance, those who asserted 
this power in Parliament vindicated its 
exercise only in a case in which it could 
be shown, 1st. That the charter in ques- 
tion was a charter of political power; 
2d. That there was a great and over- 
ruling state necessity, justifying the vio- 
lation of the charter ; 3d. That the char- 
ter had been abused and justly forfeited. ^ 
The bill affecting this charter did not 
pass. Its history is well known. The 
act which afterwards did pass, passed 
with the assent of the corporation. Even 
in the worst times, this power of Parlia- 
ment to repeal and rescind charters has 
not often been exercised. The illegal 
proceedings in the reign of Charles the 
Second were under color of law. Judg- 
ments of forfeiture were obtained in the 
courts. Such was the case of the quo 
warranto against the city of London, and 

1 Calder et ux. v. Bull. 3 Dallas, .380. 

2 Annual Repister, 1784, p. IfiO; I'arl. Keg. 
1783; Mr. Burke's Speech on Mr. Fox's F.ast 
India r.iil, Burke's Works, Vol. II. pp. 414, 417, 
407. 4(;8, 486. 

8 1 Black. 472, 473. 



the proceedings by which the charter of 
Massachusetts was vacated. 

The legislature of Xew Hampshire has 
no more power over the rights of the 
plaintiffs than existed somewhere, in 
some department of government, before 
the Revolution. The British Parliament 
coidd not have annulled or revoked this 
grant as an act of ordinary legislation. 
If it had done it at all, it could only 
have been in virtue of that sovereign 
power, called omnipotent, which does 
not belong to any legislature in the 
United States. The legislature of New 
Hampshire has the same power over 
this charter which belonged to the king 
who granted it, and no more. By the 
law of England, the power to create cor- 
porations is a part of the royal preroga- 
tive. ^ By the Revolution, this power 
may be considered as having devolved 
on the legislature of the State, and it 
ha-s accordingly been exercised bj' the 
legislature. But the king cannot abol- 
ish a corporation, or new-model it, or 
alter its powers, without its assent. This 
is the acknowledged and well-knoA\n 
doctrine of the common law. " What- 
ever might have been the notion in for- 
mer times," says Lord Mansfield, " it is 
most certain now that the corporations 
of the universities are lay corporations ; 
and that the crown cannot take away 
from them any rights that have been 
formerly subsisting in them under old 
charters or prescriptive usage." * After 
forfeitm'e duly found, the king may re- 
grant the franchises ; but a grant of 
franchises already granted, and of which 
no forfeiture has been found, is void. 

Corporate franchises can only be for- 
feited by trial and judgment.* In case 
of a new charter or grant to an existing 
corporation, it may accept or reject it as 
it pleases.® It may accept such part of 
the grant as it chooses, and reject the 
rest.'' In the very nature of tiling^;, a 
charter cannot be forced upon any body. 

* 3 Burr. 1656. 

5 King V. Pasmore, 3 Term Rep. 244. 

6 King V. Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, 3 
Burr. 1(1.56 ; 3 Term Uep. 240, — Lord Kenyon. 

7 3 Burr. 1061, and King v. Pasmore, utn 
supra. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



No one can be compelled to accept a 
grant ; and without acceptance the grant 
is necessarily void.^ It cannot be pre- 
tended that the legislature, as successor 
to the khig in this part of his preroga- 
tive, has any power to revoke, vacate, 
or alter this charter. If, therefore, the 
legislature has not this power by any 
specific grant contained in the Constitu- 
tion; nor as included in its ordinary 
legislative powers ; nor by reason of its 
succession to the prerogatives of the 
crown in this particular, on what ground 
would the authority to pass these acts 
rest, even if there were no prohibitory 
clauses in the Constitution and the Bill 
of Kights ? 

But there are prohibitions in the Con- 
stitution and Bill of Kights of New 
Hampshire, introduced for the purpose 
of limiting the legislative power and pro- 
tecting the rights and property of the 
citizens. One prohibition is, "that no 
person shall be deprived of his property, 
immunities, or privileges, put out of the 
protection of the law, or deprived of 
his life, liberty, or estate, but by judg- 
ment of his peers or the law of the 
land." 

Ill the opinion, however, which was 
given in the court below, it is denied 
that the trustees under the charter had 
any property, immunity, liberty, or 
privilege in this corporation, within the 
meaning of this prohibition in the Bill 
of Rights. It is said that it is a public 
corporation and public property ; that 
the trustees have no gi-eater interest in 
it than any other individuals ; that it is 
not private property, which they can sell 
or transmit to their heirs, and that there- 
fore they have no interest in it; that 
their office is a public trust, like that of 
the Governor or a judge, and that they 
have no more concern in the property 
of the college than the Governor in the 
property of the State, or than the judges 
in tlie fines which they impose on the 
culprits at their bar; that it is nothing 
to them whetlier their powers shall be 
extended or lessened, any more than it 
is to their honors whether their jurisdic- 

1 Ellis 1'. Marshall, 2 Mass. Rep. 277; 1 Kyd 
on Cori>oi'atious, (J5, 06. 



tion shall be enlarged or diminished. It 
is necessary, therefore, to inquire into 
the true nature and character of the cor- 
poration which was created by the char- 
ter of 1769. 

There are divers sorts of coi-porations ; 
and it may be safely admitted that the 
legislature has more power over some 
than others.^ Some corporations are for 
government and political arrangement; 
such, for example, as cities, counties, 
and towns in New England. These 
may be changed and modified as public 
convenience may require, due regard be- 
ing always had to the rights of property. 
Of such corporations, all who live with- 
in the limits are of course obliged to be 
members, and to submit to the duties 
which the law imposes on them as such. 
Other civil corporations are for the ad- 
vancement of trade and business, such 
as banks, insurance companies, and the 
like. These are created, not by general 
law, but usually by grant. Their con- 
stitution is special. It is such as the 
legislature sees fit to give, and the gran- 
tees to accept. 

The corporation in question is not a 
civil, although it is a lay corporation. 
It is an eleemosynary corporation. It is 
a private charity, originally founded and 
endowed by an individual, with a char- 
ter obtained for it at his request, for the 
better administration of his charity. 
" The eleemosynary sort of corporations 
are such as are constituted for the per- 
petual distributions of the free alms or 
bounty of the founder of them, to such 
persons as he has directed. Of this are 
all hospitals for the maintenance of the 
poor, sick, and impotent; and all col- 
leges both in our universities and out of 
them. ' ' 3 Eleemosynary corporations are 
for the management of private property, 
according to the will of the donors. 
They are private corporations. A col- 
lege is as much a private coj'poration as 
a hospital; especially a college founded, 
as this was, by private bounty. A col- 
lege is a charity. " The establishment 
of learning," says Lord Hardwicke, " is 
a charity, and so considered in the stat- 

2 1 Wooddeson, 47'4 ; 1 Black. 467. 

3 1 Black. 471. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



ute of Elizabeth. A devise to a college, 
for their benefit, is a laudable charity, 
and deserves encouragement." ^ 

The legal signification of a charity is 
derived chiefiy from the statute 43 Eliz. 
ch. 4. " Tliose purposes," says Sir Wil- 
liam Grant, "are considered charitable 
which that statute enumerates." ^ Col- 
leges are enumerated as charities in 
that statute. The government, in these 
cases, lends its aid to perpetuate the be- 
neficent intention of the donor, by grant- 
ing a charter under which his private 
charity shall continue to be dispensed 
after his death. This is done either by 
incorporating the objects of the charity, 
as, for instance, the scholars in a college 
or the poor in a hospital, or by incorpo- 
rating those who are to be governors or 
trustees of the cliarity.^ In cases of the 
first sort, the founder is, by the common 
law, visitor. In early times it became 
a maxim, that he who gave the property 
might regulate it in future. " Cujus est 
dare, ejus est disponere." This right of 
visitation descended from the founder to 
his heir as a right of property, and pre- 
cisely as his other property went to his 
heir; and in^default of heirs it went to 
the king, as all other property goes to 
the king for the want of heirs. The 
right of visitation arises from the prop- 
erty. It grows out of the endowment. 
The founder may, if he please, part with 
it at the time when he establishes the 
charity, and may vest it in others. 
Therefore, if he chooses that governors, 
trustees, or overseers should be appointed 
in the charter, he may cause it to be 
done, and his power of visitation may be 
transferred to them, instead of descend- 
ing to his heirs. The persons thus as- 
signed or appointed by the founder will 
be visitors, with all the powers of the 
founder, in exclusion of his heir.'' The 
right of visitation, then, accrues to them, 
as a matter of property, by the gift, 
transfer, or appointment of the founder. 
This is a private right, which they can 
assert in all legal modes, and in which 
they have the same protection of the law 

1 1 Ves. 537. 2 9 Ves. Jun. 405. 

8 1 Wood. 474. 4 1 Black. 471. 

5 2 Term Rep. 350, 351. 



as in all other rights. As visitors they 
may make rules, ordinances, and stat- 
utes, and alter and repeal them, as far 
as permitted so to do by the charter. ^ 
Although the charter proceeds from the 
crown or the government, it is considered 
as the will of the donor. It is obtained 
at his request. He imposes it as the 
rule which is to prevail in the dispensa- 
tion of his bounty in all future times. 
The king or government which grants 
the charter is not thereby the founder, 
but he who furnishes the funds. The 
gift of the revenues is the founda- 
tion.^ 

The leading case on this subject is 
Phillips V. Bury.'' This was an eject- 
ment brought to recover the rectory- 
house, &c. of Exeter College in Oxford. 
The question was whether the plaintiff 
or defendant was legal rector. Exeter 
College was founded by an individual, 
and incorporated by a charter granted 
by Queen Elizabeth. The controversy 
tm"ned upon the power of the visitor, 
and, in the discussion of the cause, the 
natui'e of college charters and corpora- 
tions was very fully considered. Lord 
Holt's judgment, copied from his own 
manuscript, is found in 2 Term Reports, 
346. The following is an extract: — 

" That we may the better apprehend 
the nature of a visitor, we are to consider 
that there are in hiw two sorts of corpora- 
tions aggrejiate ; sucli as are for public gov- 
ernment, and such as are for private charity. 
Those that are for the public government 
of a town, city, mastery, or the like, being 
for public advantage, are to be governed 
according to the laws of the land. If they 
make any particular private laws and Con- 
stitutions, the validity and justice of them 
is examinable in the king's courts. Of these 
there are no particular private founders, 
and consequently no particular visitor ; 
there are no patrons of these ; therefore, if 
no provision be in the cliarter how the suc- 
cession shall continue, the law sup])lieth the 
defect of that constitution, and saith it shall 
be by election ; as mayor, aldermen, com- 
mon coimcil, and the like. But private and 
particular corporations for charity, founded 
and endowed by private persons, are sub- 
ject to the private government of those 
who erect them ; and therefore, if there be 

6 1 Black. 480. 

7 1 Lord Raymond, 5; Comb. 265; Holt, 
715; 1 Shower, 360; 4 Mod. 106; Skinn. 447. 



8 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



no visitor appointed by the founder, the law 
appoints the founder and liis licirs to be 
visitors, who are to act and proceed accord- 
ing to the particular laws and constitutions 
assigned them by tlie founder. It is now 
admitted on all "hands that the founder is 
patron, and, as founder, is visitor, if no par- 
ticular visitor be assigned ; so that patron- 
age and visitation are necessary consequents 
one upon another. For this visitatorial 
power was not introduced by any canons or 
constitutions ecclesiastical (as was said by 
a learned gentleman whom I have in my 
eye, in his argument of tliis case) ; it is an 
appointment of law. It ariseth from the 
property which the founder had in the 
lauds assigned to support the charity; and 
as he is the author of the charity, the law 
gives liim and his heirs a visitatorial power, 
that is, an authority to inspect the actions 
and regulate the behavior of the members 
that partake of the charity. For it is fit 
the members that are endowed, and that 
have the charity bestowed upon tliem, 
should not be left to themselves, but pursue 
the intent and design of him that bestowed 
it upon them. Now, indeed, tchere the poor, 
or those that receive the chariii/, are not incorpo- 
rated, but there are certain trustees who dispose 
of the charity, there is no visitor, because the in- 
terest of the revenue is not vested in the poor that 
have the benefit of the charity, but thexj are sub- 
ject to the orders and directions of the trustees. 
But where they who are to ciijoy the ben- 
efit of the charity are incorporated, there 
to prevent all perverting of tlie charity, or 
to compose differences that may happen 
among them, there is by law a visitatorial 
power ; and it being a creature of the 
founder's own, it is reason that he and his 
heirs should liave that power, unless by the 
founder it is vested in some other. Now 
there is no manner of difference between a 
college and a hospital, except only in de- 
gree. A hospital is for those that are poor, 
and mean, and low, and sickly ; a college is 
for another sort of indigent persons; but it 
hath another intent, to study in and breed 
up persons in the world that have no other- 
wise to live; but still it is as much within 
the reasons as hospitals. And if in a hos- 
pital the master and poor are incorporated, 
It IS a college liaving a common seal to act 
by, although it hath not the name of a col- 
lege (wliicii always supposotli a corpora- 
tion), because it is of an inferior degree; 
and in the one case and in the other there 
must be a visitor, eitlier the founder and his 
heirs or one appointed by hmi ; and both are 
eleemosynary." 

Lord Holt concludes his -whole argu- 
ment by again repeating, that that col- 
lege was a private corporation, and that 
the founder had a right to ajspomt a vis- 
1 1 Lord Eaymond, 9. 



itor, and to give him such power as he 
saw fit.^ 

The learned Bishop Stillingfleet's ar- 
gument in the same cause, as a member 
of the House of Lords, when it was 
there heard, exhibits veiy clearly the 
nature of colleges and similar corpora- 
tions. It is to the following effect. 
' ' That this absolute and conclusive 
power of visitors is no more than the 
law hath appointed in other cases, upon 
commissions of charitable uses : that the 
common law, and not any ecclesiastical 
canons, do place the power of visitation 
in the founder and his heirs, unless he 
settle it upon others: that although cor- 
porations for public government be sub- 
ject to the courts of Westminster Hall, 
which have no particular or special 
visitors, yet corporations for charity, 
founded and endowed by private per- 
sons, are subject to the rule and govern- 
ment of those that erect them; but 
where the persons to whom the charity 
is given are not incorporated, there is no 
such visitatorial power, because the in- 
terest of the revenue is not invested in 
them; but where they are, the right of 
visitation ariseth from th^ foundation, 
and the founder may convey it to whom 
and in iduit manner he pleases; and the 
visitor acts as founder, and hij the same 
authority which he had, and consequently 
is no more accountable than he had been : 
that the king by his charter can make a 
society to be incorporated so as to have 
the rights belonging to persons, as to 
legal capacities: that colleges, although 
founded by private persons, are yet in- 
corporated by the king's charter ; but al- 
though the kings by their charter made 
the colleges to be such in law, that is, to 
be legal corporations, yet they left to the 
particular founders authority to appoint 
what statutes they thought fit for the 
regulation of them. And not only the 
statutes, but the appointment of visitors, 
was left to them, and the manner of gov- 
ernment, and the several conditions on 
which any persons were to be made or 
continue partakers of their bounty." 2 
These opinions received the sanction 

2 1 Burn's Eccles. Law, 443, Appendix, 
No. 3. ' . i F . 



THE DAllTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



9 



of the House of Lords, and they seem 
to be settled and undoubted law. Where 
there is a cliarter, vesting proper powers 
in trustees, or governors, they are visit- 
ors ; and there is no control in any body 
else; except only that the courts of 
equity or of law will interfere so far as to 
preserve the revenues and prevent the 
perversion of the funds, and to keep the 
visitors within their prescribed bounds. 
"If there be a charter with proper 
powers, the charity must be regulated 
in the manner prescribed by the charter. 
There is no ground for the controlling 
interposition of the courts of chancery. 
The interposition of the courts, there- 
fore, in those instances in which the 
charities were foimded on charters or by 
act of Parliament, and a visitor or gov- 
ernor and trustees appointed, must be 
referred to the general jm-isdiction of 
the com-ts in all cases in which a trust 
conferi-ed appears to have been abused, 
and not to an original right to direct the 
management of the charity, or the con- 
duct of the governors or ti'ustees." ^ 
" The original of all visitatorial power is 
the property of tlie donor, and the power 
every one has to dispose, direct, and reg- 
ulate his own property ; like the case of 
patronage; cujus est dare, &c. There- 
fore, if either the crown or the subject 
creates an eleemosynai-y foundation , and 
vests the charity in the persons who are 
to receive the benefit of it, since a con- 
test might arise about the government 
of it, the law allows the founder or his 
heirs, or the person specially appointed 
by him to be visitor, to determine con- 
cerning his own creature. If the charity 
is not vested in the persons who are to 
partake, but in trustees for their benefit, 
no visitor can arise by implication, but 
the trustees have that power." '^ 

' ' There is nothing better established," 
says Lord Commissioner Eyre, "than 
that this court does not entertain a 
general jurisdiction, or regulate and 

1 2 F"onb. 205, 206. 

2 Green v. Rutherforth, 1 Ves. 472, per Lord 
Hardwicke. 

3 Attorney-General v. Foundling' Hospital, 
2 Ves. -Tun. 47. See also 2 Kyd on Corpora- 
tions, 195; Cooper's Equity Pleading, 292. 



control charities estahUshed hy charter. 
There the establishment is fixed and 
determined ; and the court has no power 
to vary it. If the governors established 
for the regulation of it are not those 
who have the management of the rev- 
enue, this court has no jurisdiction, 
and if it is ever so much abused, as far 
as it respects the jm-isdiction of this 
court it is without remedy ; but if those 
established as governors have also the 
management of the revenues, this com-t 
does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, 
so far as they are to be considered as 
trustees of the revenue."^ 

" The foundations of colleges," says 
Lord Mansfield, " are to be considered 
in two views ; namely, as they are cor- 
porations and as they are eleemosynary. 
As eleemosynary, they are the creatm-es 
of the founder; he may delegate his 
power, either generally or specially ; he 
may prescribe particular modes and man- 
ners, as to the exercise of part of it. If 
he makes a general visitor (as by the 
general words visitator sit), tlie person so 
constituted has all incidental power ; but 
he may be restrained as to particular in- 
stances. The founder may appoint a 
special visitor for a particular purpose, 
and no further. The founder may make 
a general visitor ; and yet appoint an in- 
ferior particular power, to be executed 
without going to the visitor in the first 
instance."^ And even if the king be 
founder, if he grant a charter, incorpo- 
rating trustees and governors, they are 
visitors, and the king cannot visit."* A 
subsequent donation, or ingrafted fel- 
lowship, falls under the same general 
visitatorial power, if not otherwise spe- 
cially provided.® 

In New England, and perhaps through- 
out the United States, eleemosynary cor- 
porations have been generally established 
in the latter mode; that is, by incori)o- 
rating governors, or trustees, and vesting 
in them the right of visitation. Small 

< St. John's College, Cambridge, v. Toding- 
ton, 1 Butt. 200. 

6 Attorney-General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. 
328. 

8 Green v. Rutherforth, ub! supra; St. John's 
College V. Todington, ubi supra. 



10 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



variations may have been in some in- 
stances adopted ; as in the case of Har- 
vard College, where some power of 
inspection is given to the overseers, but 
not, strictly speaking, a visitatorial 
power, which still belongs, it is appre- 
hended, to the fellows or members of 
the corjjoration. In general, there are 
many donors. A charter is obtained, 
comprising them all, or some of them, 
and such others as they choose to include, 
with tlie right of appointing successors. 
They are thus the visitors of their own 
charity, and appoint others, such as they 
may see fit, to exercise the same office 
in time to come. All such corporations 
are private. The case before the court 
is clearly that of an eleemosynary cor- 
poration. It is, in the strictest legal 
sense, a private charity. In King v. 
St. Catherine's Hall,^ that college is 
called a private eleemosynary lay cor- 
poration. It was endowed by a private 
founder, and incorporated by letters 
patent. And in the same manner was 
Dartmouth College founded and incor- 
porated. Dr. Wheelock is declared by 
the charter to be its founder. It was 
established by him, on funds contributed 
and collected by himself. 

As such founder, he had a right of 
visitation, which he assigned to the trus- 
tees, and they received it by his consent 
and appointment, and held it under the 
charter.^ He appointed these trustees 
visitors, and in that respect to take place 
of his heir ; as he might have appointed 
devisees, to take his estate instead of his 
heir. Little, probably, did he think, at 
that time, that the legislature would ever 
take away this property and these privi- 
leges, and give them to others. Little 
did he sui)i)o.se that this charter secured 
to him and his successors no legal rights. 
Little did the other donors think so. If 
they had, the college would have been, 
what the university is now, a thing upon 
paper, existing only in name. 

The numerous academies in New 
England have been established substan- 
tially in the same manner. They hold 
their property by the same tenure, and 

1 4 Term Rep. 233, 



no other. Xor has Harvard College any ' 
surer title than Dartmoiith College. It ' 
may to-day have more friends ; but to- 
morrow it may have more enemies. Its 
legal rights are the same. So also of 
Yale College; and, indeed, of all the 
others. AA'hen the legislature gives to 
these institutions, it may and does ac- 
company its grants with such conditions 
as it pleases. The grant of lands by 
the legislature of Xew Hami^shire to 
Dartmouth College, in 1789, was accom- 
jiauied with various conditions. When 
donations are made, by the legislature or 
others, to a charity already existing, 
without any condition, or the specifica- 
tion of any new use, the donation fol- 
lows the nature of the charity. Hence 
the doctrine, that all eleemosjmai-y cor- 
porations are private bodies. They are 
founded by private persons, and on pri- 
vate property. The public cannot be 
charitable in these institutions. It is 
not the money of the public, but of pri- 
vate persons, which is dispensed. It 
may be public, that is general, in its 
uses and advantages ; and the State may 
very laudably add contributions of its 
own to the funds ; but it is still private 
in the tenure of the property, and in the 
right of administering the funds. 

If the doctrine laid down by Lord 
Holt, and the House of Lords, in 
Phillips V. Bun/, and recognized and es- 
tablished in all the other cases, be cor- 
rect, the property of this college was 
private property; it was vested in the 
trustees by the charter, and to be ad- 
ministered by them, according to the 
will of the founder and donors, as ex- 
pressed in the charter. They were also 
visitors of the charity, in the most ample 
sense. They had, therefore, as they 
contend, privileges, property, and im- 
munities, within the true meaning of 
the Bill of Rights. They had rights, 
and still have them, which they can 
assert against the legislature, as well as 
against other WTong-doers. It makes 
no difference, that the estate is holden 
for certain trusts. The legal estate is 
still theu-s. They have a right in the 

2 Black, ubi supra. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



11 



property, and they have a right of visit- 
hiy and superintending the trust; and 
this is an object of legal protection, as 
much as any other right. The charter 
dechu-es that the powers conferred on 
the trustees are " privileges, advantages, 
liberties, and immunities"; and that 
they shall be for ever holden by them 
and their successors. The Xew Hamp- 
shire Bill of Rights declares that no one 
shall be deprived of his " property, priv- 
ileges, or inmiunities," but by judg- 
ment of his peers, or the law of the land. 
Tiie argument on the other side is, that, 
although these terms ^nay mean some- 
thing in the Bill of Rights, they mean 
nothing in this charter. But they are 
terms of legal signification, and veiy 
properly used in the charter. They are 
equivalent with franchises. Blackstone 
says that franchise and liberty are used 
as spaonyraous terms. And after enu- 
merating other liberties and franchises, 
he says : " It is likewise a franchise for 
a number of persons to be incorporated 
and subsist as a body politic, with a 
power to maintain perpetual succession 
and do other corporate acts; and each 
individual member of such a corporation 
is also said to have a franchise or free- 
dom." i 

Liberties is the term used in Magna 
Charta as including franchises, privi- 
leges, immunities, and all the rights 
■which belong to that class. Professor 
Sullivan says, the term signifies the 
'■'■ privileges that some of the subjects, 
■whether single pei'sons or bodies cor- 
porate, have above others by the lawful 
grant of the king; as the chattels of 
felons or outlaws, and the lands and 



n i 



pricile/jes of corporation! 

The privilege, then, of being a mem- 
ber of a corporation, under a lawful 
grant, and of exercising the rights and 
powers of such member, is such a i^rivi- 
lege, liberty, or franchise, as has been 
the object of legal protection, and the 
subject of a legal interest, from the time 
of Magna Charta to the present moment. 
The plaintiffs have such an interest in 

1 2 Rlack. Com. 37. 

2 Sull. 4lst Lect. 



this corporation, individually, as they 
could assert and maintain in a court of 
law, not as agents of the public, but in 
their own right. Each trustee has a 
franchise, and if he be disturbed in the 
enjojTnent of it, he would have redress, 
on appealing to the law, as promptly as 
for any other injiuy. If the other trus- 
tees should conspire against any one of 
them to prevent his e(iual right and 
voice in the appointment of a president 
or professor, or in the passing of any 
statute or ordinance of the college, he 
woidd be entitled to his action, for de- 
priving him of his franchise. It makes 
no difference, that this property is to 
be holden and administered, and these 
franchises exercised, for the purpose of 
diffusing learning. No principle and 
no case establishes any such distinction. 
The public may be benefited by the \ise 
of this property. But this does not 
change the nature of the property, or 
the rights of the owners. The object of 
the charter may be public good ; so it is 
in all other corporations ; and this -woidd 
as well justify the resumption or viola- 
tion of the grant in any other case as in 
this. ' In the case of an advowson, the 
use is public, and the right cannot be 
turned to any private benefit or emolu- 
ment. It is nevertheless a legal private 
right, and the property of the o'wner, 
as emphatically as his freehold. The 
rights and privileges of trustees, visit- 
ors, or governors of incoi-jiorated col- 
leges, stand on the same foundation. 
They are so considered, both by Lord 
Holt and Lord Hardwicke.^ 

To contend that the rights of the 
plaintiffs may be taken away, because 
they derive from them no pecuniary 
benefit or private emolument, or be- 
cause they cannot be transmitted to 
their heirs, or would not be assets to 
pay their debts, is taking an extremely 
narrow^ view of the subject. According 
to this notion, the case would be difi'er- 
ent, if, in the charter, they had stipu- 
lated for a commission on the disbm'se- 
ment of the funds ; and they have ceased 

8 Phillips V. Bury, and Green v. Kutherforth, 
ubi supra. See also 2 Black. 21. 



12 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



to have any interest in the property, 
because they have undertaken to ad- 
minister it gratuitously. 

It cannot be necessaiy to say much in 
refutation of the idea, that there cannot 
be a legal interest, or ownership, in any 
thing which does not yield a pecuniary 
profit ; as if the law regarded no rights 
but the rights of money, and of visible, 
tangible property. Of what nature are 
all rights of suf£i-age? No elector has a 
particular personal interest; but each 
has a legal right, to be exercised at his 
own discretion, and it cannot be taken 
away from him. The exercise of this 
right directly and very materially affects 
the public ; much more so than the ex- 
ercise of the privileges of a trustee of 
this college. Consequences of the ut- 
most magnitude may sometimes depend 
on the exercise of the right of suffrage 
by one or a few electors. Nobody was 
ever yet heard to contend, however, 
that on that account the public might 
take away the right, or impair it. This 
notion appears to be borrowed from no 
better source than the repudiated doc- 
trine of the three judges in the Ayles- 
buiy case.^ That was an action against 
a retmniing officer for refusing the plain- 
tiff's vote, in the election of a member 
of Parliament. Three of the judges of 
the King's Bench held, that the action 
could not be maintained, because, among 
other objections, " it was not any mat- 
ter of profit, either in presenti, or in 
future." It would not enrich the plain- 
tiff in presenti, nor would it in futuro go 
to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. 
But Lord Holt and the House of Lords 
were of another opinion. The judg- 
ment of the three judges was reversed, 
and the doctrine they held, having been 
exploded for a century, seems now for 
the first time to be revived. 

Individuals have a right to use their 
own property for purposes of benevo- 
lence, either towards the public, or 
towards other individuals. They have 
a right to exercise this benevolence in 
such lawful manner as they may choose; 
and when the government has induced 

1 Ashby I'. White, 2 Lord Raymond, 938. 



and excited it, by contracting to give 
perpetuity to the stipulated manner of 
exercising it, it is not law, but violence, 
to rescind this contract, and seize on the 
property. AVhether the State will grant 
these franchises, and under what condi- 
tions it will grant them, it decides for 
itself. But when once gi-anted, the con- 
stitution holds them to be sacred, till 
forfeited for just cause. 

That all property, of which the use 
may be beneficial to the public, belongs 
therefore to the public, is quite a new 
doctrine. It has no precedent, and is 
supported by no known principle. Dr. 
Wheelock might have answered his pur- 
poses, in this case, by executing a pri- 
vate deed of trust. He might have 
conveyed his pi'operty to trustees, for 
precisely such uses as are described in 
this charter. Indeed, it appears that he 
had contemplated the establishing of 
his school in that manner, and had 
made his wiU, and devised the property 
to the same persons who were after- 
wards ajjpointed trustees in the charter. 
JSIany literary and other charitable in- 
stitutions are founded in that manner, 
and the trust is renewed, and conferred 
on other persons, from time to time, as 
occasion may require. In such a case, 
no lawyer would or could say, that the 
legislature might divest the trustees, 
constituted by deed or wiU, seize upon 
the property, and give it to other per- 
sons, for other purposes. And does the 
granting of a charter, which is only 
done to perpetuate the trust in a more 
convenient manner, make any differ- 
ence? Does or can this change the 
nature of the charity, and turn it into a 
public political corporation? Happily, 
we are not without authority on this 
point. It has been considered and ad- 
judged. Lord Hardwicke says, in so 
many words, " The charter of the crown 
cannot make a charity more or less pub- 
lic, but only more permanent than it 
would otherwise be."^ 

The granting of the corporation is but 
making the trust perpetual, and does 
not alter the nature of the charity. The 

2 Attornej'-General v. Pearce, 2 Atk. 87. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



13 



very object sought in obtaining such 
charter, and in giving property to such 
a corporation, is to make and keep it 
private property, and to clothe it with 
all the security and inviolability of pri- 
vate property. The intent is, that there 
shall be a legal private ownersliip, and 
that the legal owners shall maintain and 
protect the property, for the benefit of 
those for whose use it was designed. 
AYho ever endowed the public? Wlio 
ever appointed a legislature to adminis- 
ter his charity? Or who ever heard, 
before, that a gift to a college, or a hos- 
pital, or an asylum, was, in reality, 
nothing but a gift to the State? 

The State of Vermont is a principal 
donor to Dartmoutl\jCollege. The lands 
given lie in that State. This appears in 
the special verdict. Is Vermont to be 
considered as having intended a gift to 
the State of New Hampshire in this 
case, as, it has been said, is to be the 
reasonable construction of all donations 
to the college? The legislature of Xew 
Hampshire affects to represent tlie pub- 
lic, and therefore claims a riglit to con- 
trol all property destined to j^ublic use. 
What liinders Vermont fi-om consider- 
ing herself equally the representative 
of the public, and from resuming her 
grants, at her own pleasure? Her right 
to do so is less doubtful than the power 
of Xew Hampshire to pass the laws in 
question. 

In University v. Foy,'^ the Supreme 
Court of North Carolina pronounced un- 
constitutional and void a law repealing 
a grant to the University of North Caro- 
lina, although that university was origi- 
nally erected and endowed by a statute 
of the State. That case was a grant of 
lands, and the court decided that it 
could not be resumed. This is the 
grant of a power and capacity to hold 
lands. Where is the difference of the 
cases, upon principle? 

In Terrell v. Taylor,^ this court de- 
cided tliat a legislative grant or confir- 
mation of lands, for the purposes of 
moral and religious instruction, could 
no more be rescinded than other grants.. 



1 2 Haywood's Rep. 



2 9 Cranch, 43. 



The nature of the use was not holden to 
make any difference. A grant to a par- 
ish or church, for the purposes which 
have been mentioned, cannot be distin- 
guished, in respect to the title it confers, 
from a grant to a college for the promo- 
tion of piety and learning. To the same 
purj^ose may be cited the case of Pawlelt 
V. Clark. The State of Vermont, by 
statute, in 179-1, granted to the respec- 
tive towns in that State certain glebe 
lands lying within those towns for the 
sole use and support of religious wor- 
ship. In 1799, an act was passed to 
rei^eal the act of 179i; but this court 
declared, that the act of 1794, "so far 
as it granted the glebes to the towns, 
could not afterwards be repealed by the 
legislature, so as to divest the rights of 
the towns under the grant." ^ 

It will be for the other side to show 
that the nature of the use decides the 
question whether the legislature has 
power to resume its grants. It will be 
for those who maintain such a doc- 
trine to show the principles and cases 
upon which it rests. It will be for them 
also to fix the limits and boundaries of 
their doctrine, and to show what are 
and what are not such uses as to give 
the legislature this power of resumption 
and revocation. And to fvirnish an 
answer to the cases cited, it will be 
for them further to show that a grant 
for the use and support of religious 
worship stands on other ground than 
a grant for the promotion of piety and 
learning. 

I hope enough has been said to show 
that the trustees possessed vested liber- 
ties, privileges, and inimunities, under 
this charter; and that such liberties, 
privileges, and immunities, being once 
lawfully obtained and vested, are as in- 
violable as any vested rights of property 
whatever. Rights to do certain acts, 
such, for instance, as the visitation and 
superintendence of a college and the ap- 
pointment of its officers, may surely be 
vested rights, to all legal intents, as 
completely as the right to possess prop- 
erty. A late learned judge of this couit 

8 9 Cranch, 292. 



14 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



has said, " AMien I say that a right is 
vested in a citizen, I mean that he has 
the power to do certain actions, or to 
possess certain things, according to the 
law of the land." 1 

If such be the true nature of the plain- 
tiffs' interests under this charter, what 
are the articles in the New Hampshire 
Bill of Rights which these acts infringe? 

They infringe the second article; 
which says, that the citizens of the State 
have a right to hold and possess prop- 
erty. The plaintiffs had a legal property 
in this charter; and they had acquired 
property under it. The acts deprive 
them of both. They impair and take 
away the charter ; and they appropriate 
the property to new uses, against their 
consent. The plaintiffs cannot now 
hold the property acquired by them- 
selves, and which this article says they 
have a right to hold. 

They infringe the twentieth article. 
By that article it is declared that, in 
questions of property, there is a right to 
trial. The plaintiffs are divested, with- 
out trial or judgment. 

They infringe the twenty-third article. 
It is therein declared that no retrospec- 
tive laws shall be passed. This article 
bears directly on the case. These acts 
must be deemed to be retrospective, 
within the settled construction of that 
term. What a retrospective law is, has 
been decided, on the construction of this 
very article, in the Circuit Coiu-t for the 
First Circuit. The learned judge of that 
circuit says : ' ' Every statute which takes 
away or impairs vested rights, acquired 
under existing laws, must be deemed 
retrospective." ^ That all such laws are 
retrospective was decided also in the 
case of Dash v. Van Kleek,^ where a most 
learned judge quotes this article from 
the constitution of New Hampshire, 
with manifest approbation, as a plain 
and clear expression of those fundamen- 
tal and unalterable principles of justice, 
which must lie at the foundation of 



1 3 Dallas, 394. 

2 Society v. Wheeler, 2 Gal. 103. 
8 7 Johnson's Kep. 477. 

* Bracton, Lib. 4, fol. 228. 2 Inst. 292. 



every free and just system of laws. Can 
any man deny that the plaintiffs had 
rights, under the charter, which were 
legally vested, and that by these acts 
those rights are impaired? 

" It is a principle in the English law, ' ' 
says Chief Justice Kent, in the case last 
cited, " as ancient as the law itself, that 
a statute, even of its omnipotent Parlia- 
ment, is not to have a retrospective ef- 
fect. ' Nova constitutio futuris f ormam 
imponere debet, et non. prseteritis.' "* 
The maxim in Bracton was taken from 
the civil law, for we find in that system 
the same principle, expressed substan- 
tially in the same w^ords, that the law- 
giver cannot alter his mind to the 
prejudice of a vested right. ' Nemo 
potest mutare concilium suum in alterius 
injuriam.'^ Tliis maxim of Papinian 
is general in its terms, but Dr. Taylor ^ 
applies it directly as a restriction upon 
the law'giver, and a declaration in the 
Code leaves no doubt as to the sense of 
the civil law. ' Leges et constitutiones 
futuris certum est dare f ormam negotiis, 
non ad facta prjeterita revocari, nisi no- 
minatim, et de prseterito tempore, et ad- 
huc pendentibus negotiis cautum sit. ' "^ 
This passage, according to the best in- 
terpretation of the civilians, relates not 
merely to future suits, but to future, as 
contradistinguished from jjast, contracts 
and vested rights.^ It is indeed ad- 
mitted that the prince may enact a ret- 
rospective law, pi'ovided it be done ex- 
pressbj ; for the will of the prince under 
the despotism of the Roman emperors 
was paramount to every obligation. 
Great latitude was anciently allowed to 
legislative expositions of statutes; for 
the separation of the judicial from the 
legislative power was not then distinctly 
known or prescribed. The i;)rince was in 
the habit of interpreting his own laws for 
particular occasions. This was called 
the ' Interlocutio Principis ' ; and this, 
according to Huber's definition, was, 
' quando principes inter partes loquun- 

6 Dig. 50. 17. 75. 

6 Elements of the Civil Law, p. 168. 



Cod. 1. 14. 7. 
8 Perezii Prjelect. h. 



t. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



15 



tur et jus dicunt.' ^ No correct civilian, 
and especially no proud admirer of the 
ancient republic (if any such then ex- 
isted), could have reflected on tliis inter- 
ference with private rights and pending 
suits without disgust and indignation; 
and we are rather surprised to find that, 
under the violent and arbitrary genius 
of the Roman government, the principle 
before us should have been acknowl- 
edged and obeyed to the extent in which 
we find it. The fact shows that it must 
be founded in the clearest justice. Our 
case is happily very diiferent from that 
of the subjects of Justinian. With us 
the power of the lawgiver is limited and 
defined; the judicial is regarded as a dis- 
tinct, independent power; private rights 
are better understood and more exalted 
in public estimation, as well as secm-ed 
b}' provisions dictated by the spirit of 
freedom, and unknown to the civil law. 
Our constitutions do not admit the 
power assximed by the Roman prince, 
and the principle we are considering is 
now to be regarded as sacred." 

These acts infringe also the thirty-sev- 
enth article of the constitution of New 
Hampshire; which says, that the powers 
of government shall be kept separate. 
By these acts, the legislatm-e assumes to 
exercise a judicial power. It declares a 
forfeiture, and resumes franchises, once 
granted, without trial or hearing. 

If the constitution be not altogether 
waste-paper, it has restrained the power 
of the legislature in these particulars. 
If it has any meaning, it is that the leg- 
islature shall pass no act directly and 
manifestly impairing private property 
and private privileges. It shall not 
judge by act. It shall not decide by 
act. It shall not deprive by act. But 
it shall leave all these things to be tried 
and adjudged by the law of the land. 

The fifteenth article has been refeiTed 
to before. It declares that no one shall 
be "deprived of his property, immuni- 
ties, or privileges, but by the judgment 
of his peers or the law of the land." 
Notwithstanding the light in which the 
learned judges in New Hampshire viewed 

1 Praelect. Juris. Civ., Vol. 11. p. 545. 



the rights of the plaintiffs under the 
charter, and Avhich has been before ad- 
verted to, it is found to be admitted in 
their opinion, tliat those rights are priv- 
ileges within the meaning of this fif- 
teenth article of the Bill of Rights. Hav- 
ing quoted that article, they say: " That 
the right to manage the affairs of this 
college is a privilege, within the mean- 
ing of this clause of the Bill of Rights, 
is not to be doubted." In my humble 
opinion, this surrenders tlie point. To 
resist the effect of this admission, how- 
ever, the learned judges add: " But how 
a privilege can be protected from the 
operation of the law of the land by a 
clause in the constitution, declaring that 
it shall not be taken away but by the 
law of the land, is not very easily under- 
stood." This answer goes on the ground, 
that the acts in question are laws of the 
land, within the meaning of the consti- 
tution. If they be so, the argument 
drawn from this article is fully answered. 
If they be not so, it being admitted that 
the plaintiffs' rights are "privileges," 
within the meaning of the article, the 
argument is not answered, and the arti- 
cle is infringed by the acts. 

Are, then, these acts of the legislature, 
which affect only particular persons and 
their particular privileges, laws of the 
land ? Let this question be answered by 
the text of Blackstone. "And first it 
(i. e. law) is a ride: not a transient, sud- 
den order from a superior to or concern- 
ing a particular person ; but something 
I^ermanent, uniform, and universal. 
Therefore a particu.lar act of the legis- 
lature to confiscate the goods of Titius, 
or to attaint him of high treason, does 
not enter into the idea of a municipal 
law ; for the operation of this act is 
spent upon Titius only, and has no re- 
lation to the community in general ; it is 
rather a sentence than a law."* Lord 
Coke is equally decisive and emphatic. 
Citing and commenting on the celebrated 
twenty-ninth cliapter of ^lagna Charta, 
he says: "No man shall be disseized, 
&c., unless it be by the lawful judg- 
ment, that is, verdict of equals, or by 

2 1 Black. Com. 4i. 



16 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



the law of the land, that is (to speak it 
once for all), by the due course and 
process of law."^ Have the plaiiitiifs 
lost their franchises by " due course and 
process of law" ? On the contrary, are 
not these acts "particular acts of the 
legislature, which have no relation to the 
community in general, and which are 
rather sentences than laws " ? 

By the law of the land is most clearly 
intended the general law ; a law which 
hears before it condemns; which pro- 
ceeds upon inquiiy, and renders judg- 
ment only after trial. The meaning is, 
that every citizen shall hold his life, lib- 
erty, property, and immunities under 
the protection of the general rules which 
govern society. Every thing which may 
pass under the form of an enactment is 
not therefore to be considered the law 
of the land. If this were so, acts of 
attainder, bills of pains and penalties, 
acts of confiscation, acts reversing judg- 
ments, and acts directly transfei-ring one 
man's estate to another, legislative judg- 
ments, decrees, and forfeitures in all 
possible forms, would be the law of the 
land. 

Such a strange construction would 
I'ender constitutional provisions of the 
highest importance completely inopera- 
tive and void. It would tend directly to 
establish the union of all powers in the 
legislature. There would be no general, 
permanent law for courts to administer 
or men to live under. The administra- 
tion of justice would be an empty form, 
an idle ceremony. Judges would sit to 
execute legislative judgments and de- 
crees; not to declare the law or to ad- 
minister the justice of the country. " Is 
that the law of the land," said Mr. 
Iku-ke, "upon which, if a man go to 
Westminster Ilall, and ask counsel by 
what title or tenure he holds his privi- 
lege or estate according to the Icnv of the 
lain!, he should be told, that the law of 
the land is not yet known ; that no de- 
cision or decree has been made in his 
case ; that when a decree shall be passed, 
he will then know irhat the law of the 
land is f Will this be said to be the law 

1 Coke, 2 Inst. 46. 



of the land, by any lawyer who has a 
rag of a gown left upon his back, or a 

wig with one tie upon his head ? " 

That the power of electing and ap- 
pointing the officers of this college is not 
only a right of the trustees as a corpora- 
tion, generally, and in the aggregate, 
but that each individual trustee has also 
his own individual franchise in such right 
of election and appointment, is accord- 
ing to the language of all the authorities. 
Lord Holt says: " It is agreeable to rea- 
son and the rules of law, that a franchise 
should be vested in the corporation ag- 
gregate, and yet the benefit of it to re- 
dound to the particular members, and 
to be enjoyed by them in their private 
capacity. Where the privilege of elec- 
tion is used by particular persons, it is a 
particular right, vested in every particular 



man 



"2 



It is also to be considered, that the 
president and professors of this college 
have rights to be affected by these acts. 
Their interest is similar to that of fel- 
lows in the English colleges; because 
they derive their living, wholly or in 
part, from the founders' bounty. The 
president is one of the trustees or cor- 
porators. The professors are not neces- 
sarily members of the corporation ; but 
they are appointed by the trustees, are 
removable only by them, and have fixed 
salaries payable out of the general funds 
of the college. Both president and pro- 
fessors have freeholds in their offices; 
subject only to be removed by the trus- 
tees, as their legal visitors, for good 
cause. All the authorities speak of fel- 
lowships in colleges as freeholds, not- 
withstanding the fellows may be liable 
to be suspended or removed, for misbe- 
havior, by their constituted visitors. 

Nothing could have been less expected, 
in this age, than that there should have 
been an attempt, by acts of the legis- 
lature, to take away these college liv- 
ings, the inadequate but the only support 
of literary men who have devoted their 
lives to the instruction of youth. The 
president and professors were appointed 
by the twelve trustees. They were ac- 

2 2 Lord Raymond, 952. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



17 



countable to nobody else, and could be 
removed by nobody else. They accepted 
theii- offices on this tenure. Yet the 
legislature has appointed other persons, 
■with power to remove these officers and 
tio deprive them of their livings ; and 
those other persons have exercised that 
power. No description of private prop- 
erty has been regarded as nrore sacred 
than college livings. They are the 
estates and freeholds of a most deserv- 
ing class of men ; of scholars who have 
consented to forego the advantages of 
professional and public employments, 
and to devote themselves to science and 
literature and the instruction of youth 
in the quiet retreats of academic life. 
WTiether to dispossess and oust them; 
to deprive them of their office, and to 
turn them out of their livings; to do 
: this, not by the power of their legal 
visitors or governors, but by acts of the 
legislature, and to do it without forfeit- 
ure and without fault ; whether all this 
be not in the highest degTee an inde- 
fensible and arbitrary proceeding, is a 
question of which there would seem to 
be but one side fit for a lawyer or a 
scholar to espouse. 

Of all the attempts of James the Sec- 
ond to overturn the law, and the rights 
of his subjects, none was esteemed more 
arbitrary or tyi'annical than his attack 
on Magdalen College, Oxford; and yet 
that attempt was nothing but to put out 
one president and put in another. The 
president of that college, according to 
the charter and statutes, is to be chosen 
by the fellows, who are the corporators. 
There being a vacancy, the king chose 
to take the appointment out of the hands 
of the fellows, the legal electors of a 
president, into his own hands. He there- 
fore sent down his mandate, command- 
ing the fellows to admit for president a 
person of his nomination; and, inas- 
much as this was directly against the 
charter and constitution of the college, 
he was pleased to add a 7wn ohataiite 
clause of sufficiently comprehensive im- 
port. The fellows were commanded to 
admit the person mentioned in the man- 
date, " any statute, custom, or constitu- 
tion to the contrary notwithstanding, 



wherewith we are graciously pleased to 
dispense, in this behalf." The fellows 
refused obedience to this mandate, and 
Dr. Hough, a man of independence and 
character, was chosen president by the 
fellows, according to the charter and 
statutes. Tlie king then assumed the 
power, in virtue of his prerogative, to 
send down certain commissioners to turn 
him out; which was done accordingly; 
and Parker, a, creature suited to the 
times, put in his place. Because the 
president, who was rightfully and legally 
elected, tvould 7iot deliver the keys, the 
doors were broken open. "The nation 
as well as the university," says Bishop 
Burnet, 1 "looked on all these proceed- 
ings with just indignation. It was 
thought an open piece of robbery and 
burglary when men, authorized by no 
legal commission, came and forcibly 
turned men out of their possession and 
freehold." Mr. Hume, although a man 
of different temper, and of other senti- 
ments, in some respects, than Dr. Bur- 
net, speaks of this arbitrary attempt of 
prerogative in terms not less decisive. 
" The president, and all the fellows," 
says he, "except two, who complied, 
were expelled the college, and Parker 
was put in possession of the office. This 
act of violence, of all those which were 
committed during the reign of James, is 
perhaps the most illegal and arbitraiy. 
When the dispensing power was the 
most strenuously insisted on by com-t 
la-nyers, it had still been allowed that 
the statutes which regai'd private prop- 
erty could not legally be infringed by 
that prerogative. Yet, in this instance, 
it appeared that even these were not now 
secure from invasion. The privileges of 
a college are attacked ; men are illegally 
dispossessed of their property for adher- 
ing to their duty, to their oaths, and to 
their religion." 

This measure King James lived to 
repent, after repentance was too late. 
When the charter of London was re- 
stored, and other measures of violence 
were retracted, to avert the impending 
revolution, the expelled president and 

1 History of hia own Times, Vol. HI. p. 
119. 



2 



18 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



fellows of Magdalen College were per- 
mitted to resume their rights. It is 
evident that this was regarded as an 
arbitrary interference with private prop- 
erty. Yet private property was no oth- 
erwise attacked than as a person was 
appointed to administer and enjoy the 
revenues of a college in a manner and 
by persons not authorized by the consti- 
tution of the college. A majority of the 
members of the corporation would not 
comply with the king's wishes. A 
minority would. The object was there- 
fore to make this minority a majority. 
To this end the king's commissioners 
were directed to interfere in the case, 
and they united with the two complying 
fellows, and expelled the rest; and thus 
effected a change in the government of 
the college. The language in which 
!Mr. Hume and all other writers speak 
of this abortive attempt of oppression, 
shows that colleges were esteemed to be, 
as they truly are, private corporations, 
and the property and privileges which 
belong to them private property and 
private privileges. Court law^^ers were 
found to justify the king in dispensing 
with the laws; that is, in assuming and 
exercising a legislative authority. But 
no lawyer, not even a court lawyer, in 
the reign of King James the Second, as 
far as appears, was found to say that, 
even by tiiis high authority, he could 
infringe the franchises of the fellows 
of a college, and take away their liv- 
ings. Mr. Hume gives the reason; it 
is, that such franchises were regarded, 
in a most emphatic sense, as private prop- 
erty.^ 

If it could be made to appear that the 
trustees and the president and profes- 
sors held their offices and franchises 
during the pleasure of the legislature, 
and that the property holden belonged 
to the State, then indeed the legislature 
have done no more than they had a 
right to do. But this is not so. The 
charter is a charter of privileges and 
unmunities; and these are holden by 
the trustees expressly against the State 
for ever. 

1 See a full account of tin's case in State 
Trials, 4th ed., Vol. IV. p. 2G2. 



It is admitted that the State, by its 
courts of law, can enforce the will of the 
donor, and compel a faithful execution 
of the trust. The plaintiffs claim no 
exemption from legal responsibility. 
They hold themselves at all times an- 
swerable to the law of the land, for their 
conduct in the trust committed to them. 
They ask only to hold the property of 
which they are owners, and the fran- 
chises which belong to them, until they 
shall be fomid, by due course and pro- 
cess of law, to have forfeited them. 

It can make no difference whether the 
legislature exercise the power it has as- 
sumed by removing the trustees and the 
president and professors, directly and 
by name, or by appointing others to 
expel them. The principle is the same, 
and in point of fact the result has been 
the same. If the entire franchise can- 
not be taken away, neither can it be es- 
sentially impaired. If the trustees are 
legal owners of the property, they are 
sole owners. If they are visitors, they 
are sole visitors. No one will be found 
to say, that, if the legislature may do 
what it has done, it may not do any 
thing and every thing which it may 
choose to do, relative to the property of 
the corporation, and the privileges of its 
members and officers. 

If the view which has been taken of 
this question be at all correct, this was 
an eleemosynary corporation, a private 
charity. The property was private 
property. The trustees were visitors, 
and the right to hold the charter, ad- 
minister the funds, and visit and govern 
the college, was a franchise and privi- 
lege, solemnly granted to them. The 
use being public iii no way diminishes 
their legal estate in the property, or 
their title to the franchise. There is no 
principle, nor any case, which declares 
that a gift to such a corporation is a gilt 
to the public. The acts in question 
violate property. They take away 
privileges, immunities, and franchises. 
They deny to the trustees the protec- 
tion of the law ; and they are retrospec- 
tive in their operation. In all which 
respects they are against the constitu- 
tion of New Hampshire. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



19 



The plaintiffs contend, in the second 
place, that the acts in question are re- 
pugnant to the tenth section of the first 
article of the Constitution of the United 
States. The material words of that sec- 
tion are: "No State shall pass any 
bill of attainder, ex /mst facto law, or 
law impairing the obligation of con- 
tracts." 

The object of these most important 
provisions in the national constitution 
has often been discussed, both here and 
elsewhere. It is exliibited with gi-eat 
clearness and force by one of the dis- 
tinguished persons who framed that in- 
strument. " Bills of attainder, ex />osi 
fucto laws, and laws impairing the obli- 
gation of contracts, are contrary to the 
first principles of the social compact, 
and to every principle of sound legisla- 
tion. The two former are expressly 
proliibited by the declarations prefixed 
to some of the State constitutions, and 
all of them are prohibited by the spirit 
and scope of these fundamental charters. 
Our own experience has taught us, 
nevertheless, that additional fences 
against these dangers ought not to be 
omitted. Verj' properly, therefore, have 
tlie convention added this constitutional 
bulwark, in favor of personal security 
and private rights ; and I am much de- 
ceived, if they have not, in so doing, as 
faithfully consulted the genuine senti- 
ments as the undoubted interests of 
their constituents. The sober people 
of America are weary of the fluctuatinq: 
policy which has directed the public 
councils. They have seen with regi-et, 
and with indignation, that sudden 
changes, and legislative interferences 
in cases affecting personal rights, be- 
come jobs in the hands of enterprising 
and influential speculators, and snares 
to the more industrious and less in- 
formed part of the community. They 
have seen, too, that one legislative in- 
terference is but the link of a long chain 
of repetitions; every subsequent inter- 
ference being naturally produced by the 
effects of the preceding." ^ 

It has akeady been decided in this 

1 The Federalist, No. 44, by :\Ir. Madison. 



court, that a g7-ant is a contract, within 
the meaning of this provision ; and that 
a grant by a State is also a contract, as 
much as the grant of an individual. In 
the case of Fletcher v. Peck- this court 
says : " A contract is a compact between 
two or more parties, and is either exec- 
utory or executed. An executory con- 
tract is one in which a party binds him- 
self to do, or not to do, a particular 
thing; such was the law iinder W'hich 
the conveyance was made by the gov- 
ernment. A contract executed is one 
in which the object of contract is per- 
formed; and this, says Blackstone, dif- 
fers in nothing from a grant. The 
contract between Georgia and the pur- 
chasers was executed by the grant. A 
contract executed, as well as one which 
is executory, contains obligations bind- 
ing on the parties. A gi-ant, in its own 
nature, amounts to an extinguishment 
of the right of the grantor, and implies 
a contract not to reassert that right. 
If, under a fair construction of the 
Constitution, grants are comprehended 
under the term contracts, is a grant 
from the State excluded from the opera- 
tion of the provision? Is the clause to 
be considered as inhibiting the State 
from impairing the obligation of con- 
tracts between two individuals, but as 
excluding from that inhibition contracts 
made with itself? The words them- 
selves contain no such distinction. 
They are general, and are applicable 
to contracts of every description. If 
contracts made with the State are to be 
exemisted from their operation, the ex- 
ception must arise from the character of 
the contracting i^arty, not from the 
words which are employed. Whatever 
respect might have been felt for the 
State sovereignties, it is not to be dis- 
guised that tlie framers of the Constitu- 
tion viewed with some apprehension the 
violent acts which might grow out of 
the feelings of tiie moment; and that 
the people of the United States, in 
adopting tliat instrimient, have mani- 
fested a determination to shield them- 
selves and their property from the 

2 6 Cranch, 87. 



20 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



effects of those sudden and strong pas- 
sions to which men are exposed. The 
restrictions on the legislative power of 
the States are obviously founded in this 
sentiment ; and the Constitution of the 
United States contains what may be 
deemed a bill of rights for the people of 
each State." 

It has also been decided, that a grant 
by a State before the Revolution is as 
much to be protected as a grant since. ^ 
But the case of Terrett v. Taylor, before 
cited, is of all others most pertinent to 
the present argument. Indeed, the 
judgment of the court in that case 
seems to leave little to be argued or 
decided in this. "A private corj^ora- 
tion," say the court, "created by the 
legislature, may lose its franchises by a 
misuser or a nonuser of them ; and they 
may be resumed by the government 
under a judicial judginent upon a quo 
icarranto to ascertain and enforce the 
forfeiture. This is the common law of 
the land, and is a tacit condition an- 
nexed to the creation of every such cor- 
poration. Upon a change of govern- 
ment, too, it may be admitted, that 
such exclusive privileges attached to a 
private corporation as are inconsistent 
with the new government may be abol- 
ished. In respect, also, to public cor- 
porations which exist only for public 
purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, 
and so forth, the legislature may, under 
proper limitations, have a right to 
change, modify, enlarge, or restrain 
them, securing, however, the property 
for the uses of those for whom and at 
whose expense it was originally pur- 
chased. But that the legislature can 
repeal statutes creating private corpora- 
tions, or confirming to them property 
already acquired under the faith of pre- 
vious laws, and by such repeal can vest 
the property of such corporations ex- 
clusively in the State, or dispose of the 
same to such purposes as they please, 
without the consent or default of the 
corporators, we are not prepared to ad- 
mit; and we think ourselves standing 

1 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164. 



upon the principles of natural justice, 
upon the fundamental laws of every free 
government, upon the spirit and letter 
of the Constitution of the United States, 
and upon the decisions of most respect- 
able judicial tribunals, in resisting 
such a doctrine." 

This court, then, does not admit the 
doctrine, that a legislatm-e can repeal 
statutes creating private corporations. 
If it cannot repeal them altogether, of 
course it cannot repeal any part of them, 
or impair them, or essentially alter them, 
without the consent of the corporators: 
If, therefore, it has been shown that 
this college is to be regarded as a private 
charity, this case is embraced within the 
very terms of that decision. A grant of 
corporate powers and privileges is as 
much a contract as a grant of land. 
"V\Tiat proves all charters of this sort to 
be contracts is, that they must be ac- 
cepted to give them force and effect. If 
they are not accepted, they are void. 
And in the case of an existing corpora- 
tion, if a new charter is given it, it may 
even accept part and reject the rest. In 
Rex V. Vice- Chancellor of Cambridge,''^ 
Lord Mansfield says: " There is a vast 
deal of difference between a new charter 
granted to a new corporation, (who 
must take it as it is given,) and a new 
charter given to a corporation ab'eady in 
being, and acting either under a former 
charter or under prescriptive usage. 
The latter, a corporation ab-eady exist- 
ing, are not obliged to accept the new 
charter in toto, and to receive either all 
or none of it ; they may act i:)artly under 
it, and partly under their old charter or 
prescription. The validity of these new 
charters must turn upon the acceptance 
of them." In the same case Mr. Justice 
Wilmot says : " It is the concurrence 
and acceptance of the university that 
gives the force to the charter of the 
crown." In the King v. Pasmore,^ Lord 
Kenyon observes : ' ' Some things are 
clear : when a coi-poration exists capable 
of discharging its functions, the crown 
cannot obtrude another charter upon 



2 3 Burr. 1G56. 



8 3 Term Rep. 240. 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



21 



them; they may either accept or re- 
ject it." I 

In all cases relative to charters, the 
acceptance of them is uniformly alleged 
in the pleadings. This shoMS the gen- 
eral understanding of the law, that they 
are grants or contracts ; and that parties 
are necessary to give them force and va- 
lidity. In King v. Dr. As/cew,'^ it is 
said: " The crown cannot oblige a man 
to be a corporator, without his consent ; 
he shall not be subject to the inconven- 
iences of it, without accepting it and 
assenting to it." These terms, " accept- 
ance " and "assent," are the very lan- 
guage of contract. In Ellis v. Marshall,^ 
it was expressly adjudged that the nam- 
ing of the defendant among others, in 
an act of incorporation, did not of itself 
make him a corporator ; and that his as- 
sent was necessary to that end. The 
court speak of the act of incorporation 
as a grant, and observe: " That a man 
may refuse a grant, whether from the 
government or an individual, seems to 
be a principle too clear to require the 
support of authorities." But Justice 
Buller, in King v. Pasmore, fm^nishes, 
if possible, a still more direct and ex- 
jilicit authority. Speaking of a corpo- 
ration for government, he says: "I do 
not know how to reason on this point 
better than in the manner urged by one 
of the relator's counsel ; who considered 
the grant of incorporation to be a com- 
pact between the crown and a certain 
number of the subjects, the latter of 
whom undertake, in consideration of 
the privileges which are bestowed, to 
exert themselves for the good govern- 
ment of the place." This language ap- 
plies with peculiar propriety and force 
to the case before the court. It was 
in consequence of the "privileges be- 
stowed," that Dr. Wheelock and his as- 
sociates undertook to exert themselves 
for the instruction and education of 
youth in this college ; and it was on the 
same consideration that the founder en- 
dowed it with his property. 

1 See also 1 Kj-d on Corp. 65. 

2 4 Burr. 2200. 

3 2 Mass. Rep. 209. 



And because charters of incoii?oratiou 
are of the nature of contracts, they can- 
not be altered or varied but by con- 
sent of the original parties. If a charter 
be granted by the king, it may be altered 
by a new charter granted by the king, 
and accepted by the corporators. But 
if the first charter be granted by Parlia- 
ment, the consent of Parliament must be 
obtained to any alteration. In King v. 
Miller,'^ Lord Kenyon says: "Where a 
corporation takes its rise from the king's 
charter, the king by granting, and the 
corporation by accepting another charter, 
may alter it, because it is done with the 
consent of aU the parties who are com- 
petent to consent to the alteration." ^ 

There are, in this case, aU the essen- 
tial constituent parts of a contract. 
There is something to be contracted 
about, there are parties, and there are 
plain terms in which the agreement of 
the parties on the subject of the contract 
is expressed. There are mutual consid- 
erations and inducements. The charter 
recites, that the foimder, on his part, 
has agreed to establish his seminary in 
New Hampshire, and to enlarge it be- 
yond its original design, among other 
things, for the benefit of that Province; 
and thereupon a charter is given to him 
and his associates, designated by him- 
self, promising and assm-ing to them, 
under the plighted faith of the State ^ 
the right of governing the college and 
administering its concerns in the manner 
provided in the charter. There is a 
complete and perfect grant to them of 
all the power of superintendence, visita- 
tion, and government. Is not this a 
contract? If lands or money had been 
granted to him and his associates, for 
the same purposes, such grant could not 
be rescinded. And is there any differ- 
ence, in legal contemplation, between a 
grant of corporate franchises and a grant 
of tangible property? No such differ- 
ence is recognized in any decided case, 
nor does it exist in the common appre- 
hension of mankind. 

* 6 Term Rep. 277. 

6 See also Ex parte Bolton School, 2 Brown's 
Ch. Rep. 002. 



22 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



It is therefore contended, that this 
case falls within the true meaning of this 
provision of the Constitution, as ex- 
pounded in the decisions of this court ; 
that the charter of 1769 is a contract, a 
stipulation or agreement, mutual in its 
considerations, express and formal in its 
terms, and of a most binding and sol- 
emn nature. That the acts in question 
impair this contract, has already been 
sufficiently shown. They repeal and ab- 
rogate its most essential parts. 

A single observation may not be im- 
proper on the opinion of the court of 
New Hampshire, which has been pub- 
lished. The learned judges who deliv- 
ered that opinion have viewed this 
question in a very diiferent light from 
that in which the plaintiffs have endeav- 
ored to exhibit it. After some general 
remarks, they assume that this college 
is a public corporation ; and on this basis 
their judgment rests. Whether all col- 
leges are not regarded as private and 
eleemosynary corporations, by all law 
writers and all judicial decisions ; wheth- 
er this college was not founded by Dr. 
Wheelock ; whether the charter was not 
granted at his request, the better to ex- 
ecute a trust, which he had already cre- 
ated ; whether he and his associates did 
not become visitors, by the charter; and 
whether Dartmovith College be not, 
therefore, in the strictest sense, a pri- 
vate charity, are questions which the 
learned judges do not appear to have 
discussed. 

It is admitted in that opinion, that, if 
it be a private corporation, its rights 
stand on the same ground as those of an 
individual. The great question, there- 
fore, to be decided is. To which class of 
corporations do colleges thus founded 
belong? And the plaintiffs have en- 
deavored to satisfy the court, that, ac- 
cording to the well-settled principles and 
imiform decisions of law, they are pri- 
vate, eleemosynary corporations. 

Much has heretofore been said on the 
necessity of admitting such a power in 
the legislature as has been assumed in 
this ca.se. Many cases of possible evil 
have been imagined, which might other- 
wise be without remedy. Abuses, it is 



contended, might ai'ise in the manage- 
ment of such institutions, which the or- 
dinary courts of law would be unable to 
correct. But this is only another in- 
stance of that habit of supposing ex- 
treme cases, and then of reasoning from 
them, which is the constant refuge of 
those who are obliged to defend a cause, 
which, upon its merits, is indefensible. 
It would be sufficient to say in answer, 
that it is not pretended that there was 
here any such case of necessity. But a 
still more satisfactory answer is, that 
the apprehension of danger is ground- 
less, and therefore the whole argument 
fails. Experience has not taught us that 
there is danger of great evils or of great 
inconvenience from this source. Hith- 
erto, neither in our own country nor 
elsewhere have such cases of necessity 
occurred. The judicial establishments of 
the State are presumed to be competent 
to prevent abuses and violations of trust, 
in cases of this kind, as well as in all 
others. If they be not, they are imper- 
fect, and their amendment would be a 
most proper subject for legislative wis- 
dom. Under the govermnent and pro- 
tection of the general laws of the land, 
these institutions have always been 
found safe, as well as useful. They go 
on, with the progress of society, accom- 
modating themselves easily, without sud- 
den change or violence, to the alterations 
which take place in its condition, and 
in the knowledge, the habits, and pui*- 
suits of men. The English colleges were 
founded in Catholic ages. Their re- 
ligion was reformed with the general 
reformation of the nation ; and they are 
suited perfectly well to the purpose of 
educating the Protestant youth of mod- 
ern times. Dartmouth College was es- 
tablished under a charter granted by the 
Provincial government; but a better 
constitution for a college, or one more 
adapted to the condition of things under 
the present government, in all material 
respects, could not now be framed. 
Nothing in it was found to need altera- 
tion at the Revolution. The wise men 
of that day saw in it one of the best 
hopes of future times, and commended 
it as it was, with parental care, to the 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



23 



protection and guardianship of the gov- 
ernment of the State. A charter of 
more liberal sentiments, of wiser pro- 
visions, drawn with more care, or in a 
better spirit, could not be expected at 
any time or from a-ny source. The col- 
lege needed no change in its organiza- 
tion or government. That which it did 
need was the kindness, the patronage, 
the bounty of the legislature; not a 
mock elevation to the character of a uni- 
versity, without the solid benefit of a 
shilling's donation to sustain the charac- 
ter; not the swelling and empty author- 
ity of establishing institutes and other 
colleges. This unsubstantial pageantry 
would seem to have been in derision 
of the scanty endowment and limited 
means of an unobtrusive, but useful 
and growing seminary. Least of all 
was there a necessity, or pretence of ne- 
cessity, to infringe its legal rights, vio- 
late its franchises and privileges, and 
pom- upon it these overwhelming streams 
of litigation. 

But this argument from necessity 
would equally apply in all other cases. 
If it be well founded, it would pi'ove, 
that, whenever any inconvenience or evil 
is experienced from the restrictions im- 
posed on the legislature by the Con- 
stitution, these restrictions ought to be 
disregarded. It is enough to say, that 
the people have thought otlierwise. 
They have, most wisely, chosen to take 
the risk of occasional inconvenience 
from the want of power, in order that 
there might be a settled limit to its 
exercise, and a permanent secxirity 
against its abuse. They have imposed 
prohibitions and restraints; and they 
have not rendered these altogether vain 
and nugatoiy by conferring the power of 
dispensation. If inconvenience should 
arise which the legislature cannot rem.- 
edy under the power conferred upon it, it 
is not answerable for such inconvenience. 
That which it cannot do within the 
limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at 
all. No legislature in this country is 
able, and may the time never come when 
it shall be able, to apply to itseK the 
memorable expression of a Roman pon- 
tiff: " Licet hoc de jure non possumus, 



volumus tamen de plenitudine potes- 
tatis. ' ' .1 

The case before the court is not of 
ordinary importance, nor of everj--day 
occm-rence. It affects not this college 
only, but every college, and all the 
literary institutions of the country. 
They have flom-ished hitherto, and have 
become in a high degree respectable and 
useful to the community. They ha\e 
all a common principle of existence, the 
inviolability of their charters. It will 
be a dangerous, a most dangerous ex- 
periment, to hold these institutions sub- 
ject to the rise and fall of popular 
parties, and the fluctuations of political 
opinions. If the franchise may be at 
any time taken away, or impaired, the 
property also may be taken away, or its 
use perverted. Benefactors will have no 
certainty of effecting the object of their 
bounty; and learned men will be de- 
terred from devoting themselves to the 
service of such institutions, from the pre- 
carious title of their ofiices. Colleges 
and halls vnU. be deserted by all better 
spirits, and become a theatre for the 
contentions of politics. Party and fac- 
tion will be cherished in the places con- 
secrated to piety and learning. These 
consequences are neither remote nor pos- 
sible only. They are certain and im- 
mediate, -f- 

When the court in North Carolina 
declared the law of the State, which re- 
pealed a grant to its university, uncon- 
stitutional and A'oid, the legislature had 
the candor and the wisdom to repeal the 
law. This example, so honorable to the 
State which exhibited it, is most fit to 
be followed on this occasion. And there 
is good reason to hope that a State, 
which has hitherto been so much dis- 
tinguished for temperate counsels, cau- 
tious legislation, and regard to law, will 
not fail to adopt a course which will 
accord with her highest and best inter- 
ests, and in no small degree elevate her 
reputation. 

It was for many and obvious reasons 
most anxiously desired that the question 
of the power of the legislature over this 
charter should have been finally decided 
in the State court. An earnest hope 



24 



THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 



was entertained that the judges of the 
court might have viewed the case in a 
light favorable to the rights of the trus- 
tees. That hope has failed. It is here 
that those rights are now to be main- 
tained, or they are prostrated for ever. 
*' Omnia alia perfugia bonorum, sub- 



sidia, consilia, auxilia, jura ceciderunt. 
Quern enim alium appellem? quern ob- 
tester? quem implorem? Nisi hoc loco, 
nisi apud vos, nisi per vos, judices, salu- 
tem nostram, quae spe exigua extremaque 
pendet, tenuerimus ; nihil est praeterea 
quo confugere possimus." 



( 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



A DISCOURSE DELIVERED AT PLYMOUTH, ON THE 22d OF DECEMBER, 1820. 



[The first public anniversary celebration 
of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth 
took place under tlie auspices of the " Old 
Colony Club," of whose formation an ac- 
count may be found in the interesting little 
work of William S. Russell, Esq., entitled 
" Guide to Plymouth and Kecollections of 
the Pilgrims." 

This club was formed for general pur- 
poses of social intercourse, in 1709 ; but its 
members determined, by a vote passed on 
Monday, the 18th of December, of that year, 
" to keep " Friday, the 22d, in commemora- 
tion of the landing of the fathers. A par- 
ticular account of the simple festivities of 
this first public celebration of the landing 
of tlie Pilgrims will be found at page 220 
of Mr. Russell's work. 

The following year, the anniversary was 
celebrated much in the same manner as in 
17(jt>, with the addition of a short address, 
pronounced " with modest and decent firm- 
ness, by a member of the club, Edward 
Winslow, Jr., Esq.," being the first address 
ever delivered on this occasion. 

In 1771, it was suggested by Rev. Chan- 
dler Robbuis, pastor of the First Church at 
Plymouth, in a letter addressed to the club, 
" whether it would not be agreeable, for the 
entertainment and instruction of the rising 
generation on these anniversaries, to have a 
sermon in public, some part of the day, pe- 
culiarly adajjted to the occasion." This 
recommendation prevailed, and an appro- 
priate discourse was delivered the following 
year by the Rev. Dr. Robbins. 

In 1778 the Old Colony Club was dis- 
solved, in consequence of the conflicting 
opinions of its members on the great polit- 
ical questions then agitated. Notwithstand- 
ing this event, the anniversary celebrations 
of the 22d of December continued witiiout 
interr\ij)tion till 1780, when they were sus- 
jKiided. After an interval of fourteen years, 
a public discourse was again delivered by 
the Rev. Dr. Robbins. Private celebrations 
took place the four following years, and 
from that time till the year 1810, with one 
or two exceptions, the day was annually 
commemorated, and public addresses were 



delivered by distinguished clergymen and 
laymen of Massachusetts. 

'in 1820 the "Pilgrim Society" was 
formed by the citizens of Plymouth and 
the descendants of the Pilgrims in other 
places, desirous of uniting "to commem- 
orate the landing, and to honor the memory 
of the intrepid men who first set foot on 
Plymouth rock." The foundation of this 
society gave a new im])ulse to the anniver- 
sary celebrations of this great event. The 
Hon. Daniel Webster was requested to de- 
liver the public address on the 22d of De- 
cember of that year, and the following 
discourse was pronounced by him on the 
ever-memorable occasion. Great public ex- 
pectation was awakened by the fame of the 
orator ; an immense concourse assembled at 
Plymouth to unite in the celebration ; and 
it may be safely anticipated, that some por- 
tion of the powerful effect of the following 
address on the minds of those who were so 
fortunate as to hear it, will be perpetuated 
by the press to the latest posterity. 

From 1820 to the present day, with occa- 
sional interruptions, the 22d of December 
has been celebrated by the Pilgrim Society. 
A list of all those by whom anniversary 
discourses have been delivered since the 
first organization of the Old Colony Club, 
in 1709, may be found in Mr. Russell's 
work. 

Nor has the notice of the day been con- 
fined to New England. Public celebrations 
of the landing of the Pilgrims have been 
frequent in other parts of the country, i)ar- 
ticularly in New York. The New England 
Society of that city has rarely permitted 
the day to pass without appropriate honors. 
Shnilar societies have been formed at I'iiil- 
adelphia, Charleston, S. C, and Cincinnati, 
and the day has been publicly commem- 
orated in several other parts of the coun- 
try.] 

Let us rejoice that we behold this 
day. Let us be thankful that we have 
lived to see the bright and happy break- 
ing of the auspicious morn, wliich com- 



26 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



mences tlie third century of the history 
of New England. Auspicious, indeed, 
— bringing a liappiness beyond the com- 
mon allotment of Providence to men, — 
full of present joy, and gilding with 
bright beams the prospect of futurity, is 
the dawn tliat awakens us to the com- 
memoration of tlie landing of the Pil- 
grims. 

Living at an epoch which naturally 
marks tlie progress of the history of our 
native land, we have come hither to cel- 
ebrate the great event with which that 
history commenced. For ever honored 
be this, the place of our fathers' refuge! 
For ever remembered the day which saw 
them, weary and disti-essed, broken in 
every thing but spirit, poor in all but 
faith and courage, at hist secure from 
the dangers of wintry seas, and impress- 
ing this shore with the first footsteps of 
civilized man ! 

It is a noble faculty of our nature 
which enables us to connect our thoughts, 
our sympathies, and our happiness with 
what is distant in place or time; and, 
looking before and after, to hold com- 
munion at once with our ancestors and 
our posterity. Human and mortal al- 
though we are, we are nevertheless not 
mere insulated beings, without relation 
to the past or the future. Neither the 
point of time, nor the spot of earth, in 
which we physically live, bounds our ra- 
tional and intellectual enjoyments. We 
live in the past by a knowledge of its 
history; and in the future, by hope and 
anticipation. By ascending to an asso- 
ciation with our ancestors; by contem- 
plating their example and studying their 
character; by partaking their sentiments, 
and imbibing their spirit; by accompa- 
nying them in their toils, by sympathiz- 
ing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in 
their successes and their triumphs; we 
seem to belong to their age, and to min- 
gle our own existence with theirs. We 
become their contemporaries, live the 
lives which they lived, endure what they 
endured, and partake in the rewards 
which they enjoyed. And in like man- 
ner, by running along the line of future 
time, by contemplating the probable for- 
tunes of those who are coming after us, 



by attempting something which may 
pi'omote their happiness, and leave some 
not dishonorable memorial of ourselves 
for their regard, when we shall sleep with 
the fathers, we protract our own earthly 
being, and seem to crowd whatever is 
future, as well as all that is past, into 
the narrow compass of our eai'thly exist- 
ence. As it is not a vain and false, but 
an exalted and religious imagination, 
which leads us to raise our thoughts 
from the orb, which, amidst this uni- 
verse of worlds, the Creator has given 
us to inhabit, and to send th6m with 
something of the feeling which nature 
prompts, and teaches to be proper among 
childi'en of the same Eternal Parent, to 
the contemplation of the myriads of fel- 
low-beings with which his goodness has 
peopled the infinite of space; so neither 
is it false or vain to consider ourselves 
as interested and connected with our 
whole race, through all time; allied to 
our ancestors; allied to our posterity; 
closely compacted on all sides with oth- 
ers; ourselves being but links in the 
great chain of being, which begins with 
the origin of our race, runs onward 
through its successive generations, bind- 
ing together the past, the present, and 
the future, and terminating at last, with 
the consummation of all things earthly, 
at the throne of God. 

There may be, and there often is, in- 
deed, a regard for ancestry, which nour- 
ishes only a weak pride ; as there is also 
a care for posterity, which only disguises 
an habitual avarice, or hides the work- 
ings of a low and grovelling vanity. But 
there is also a moral and philosophical 
respect for our ancestors, which elevates 
the character and improves the heart. 
Next to the sense of religious duty and 
moral feeling, I hardly know what should 
bear with stronger obligation on a lib- 
eral and enlightened mind, than a con- 
sciousness of alliance with excellence 
which is departed; and a consciousness, 
too, that in its acts and conduct, and 
even in its sentiments and thoughts, it 
may be actively operating on the happi- 
ness of those who come after it. Poetry 
is found to have few stronger concep- 
tions, by which it would affect or over- 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



27 



whelm the mind, than tliose in which it 
presents the moving and speaking image 
of the departed dead to the senses of the 
living. This belongs to poetry, only be- 
cause it is congenial to our nature. 
Poetry is, in this respect, but the hand- 
maid of true philosophy and morality; it 
deals witli us as human beings, naturally 
reverencing those whose visible connec- 
tion with this state of existence is sev- 
ered, and who may yet exercise we 
know not what s^^npathy with ourselves; 
and when it carries us forward, also, 
and shows us the long continued result 
of all the good we do, in the prosperity 
of those who follow us, till it bears us 
from ourselves, and absorbs us in an in- 
tense interest for what shall happen to 
the generations after us, it speaks only 
in the language of our nature, and af- 
fects us with sentiments which belong to 
us as human beings. 

Standing in this relation to our ances- 
tors and our posterity, we are assembled 
on this memorable spot, to perform the 
duties which that relation and the pres- 
ent occasion impose upon us. AVe have 
come to this Rock, to record here our 
homage for our Pilgrim Fathers; our 
sympathy in tiieir suif erings ; our grati- 
tude for their labors ; our admiration of 
their virtues; our veneration for their 
piety ; and our attachment to those prin- 
ciples of civil and religious liberty, which 
they encountered the dangers of the 
ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence 
of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to 
enjoy and to establish. And we would 
leave here, also, for the generations 
which are rising up rapidly to fill our 
places, some proof that we have endeav- 
ored to transmit the great inheritance 
unimpaired; that in our estimate of 
public principles and private virtue, in 
our veneration of religion and piety, in 
our devotion to civil and religious lib- 
erty, in our regard for whatever ad- 
vances human knowledge or improves 
human happiness, we are not altogether 
unworthy of our origin. 

There is a local feeling connected with 
this occasion, too strong to be resisted; 
a sort of genius of the place, which in- 
spires and awes us. We feel that we are 



on the spot where the first scene of our 
history was laid; where the hearths and 
altars of New England were first placed; 
where Christianity, and civilization, and 
letters made their first lodgement, in a 
vast extent of country, covered with a 
wilderness, and jieopled by roving bar- 
barians. We are here, at the season of 
the year at which the event took place. 
The imagination irresistibly and rapidly 
draws around us the principal features 
and the leading characters in the origi- 
nal scene. We cast our eyes abroad on 
the ocean, and we see where the little 
bark, with the interesting group upon its 
deck, made its slow progi'ess to the 
shore. We look around us, and behold 
the hills and promontories where the 
anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the 
places of habitation and of rest. We 
feel the cold which benumbed, and listen 
to the winds which pierced them. Be- 
neath us is the Rock,i on which New 
England received the feet of the Pil- 
grims. We seem even to behold them, 
as they struggle with the elements, and, 
with toilsome efforts, gain the shore. 
We listen to the chiefs in council; we 
see the unexampled exhibition of female 
fortitude and resignation; we hear the 
whisperings of youthful impatience, and 
we see, what a painter of our own has 
also represented by his pencil, ^ chilled 
and shivering childhood, houseless, but 
for a mother's arms, couchless, but for 
a mother's breast, till our own blood 
almost freezes. The mild dignity of 
Carver and of Bradford; the decisive 
and soldier-like air and manner of Stan- 
dish; the devout Brewster; the enter- 
prising Allerton;3 the general firmness 
and thoughtf uluess of the whole band ; 
their conscious joy for dangers escaped ; 

1 All interestinff account of the Rock may 
be foiiiul ill Dr. Thactifr's History of tin; Town 
of Plymouth, pj). 2!J, 108, 199. 

2 See Note A, at the end of the Discourse. 

3 For notices of Carver, lirailfcud, Standish, 
Brewster, and Allertoii, see Younir's Chnmicles 
of Plymouth and Massachusetts ; ."Morton's Me- 
morial, p. 1'2G; Belknap's American Bioj,'raphy, 
Vol. IL; Hutchinson's History, Vol. H., App., 
pp. 4.50 et seq.; Collections of the Massachu- 
setts Historical Society; Winthiop's Journal; 
and Thacher's History. 



28 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



their deep solicitude about dangers to 
come ; their trust in Heaven ; their high 
religious faith, full of confidence and an- 
ticipation; all of these seem to belong 
to this place, and to be present upon 
this occasion, to fill us with reverence 
and admiration. 

The settlement of New England by 
the colony which landed here^ on the 
twenty-second 2 of December, sixteen 
hundred and twenty, although not the 
first European establishment in what 
now constitutes the United States, was 
yet so peculiar in its causes and charac- 
ter, and has been followed and must 
still be followed by such consequences, 
as to give it a high claim to lasting com- 
memoration. On these causes and con- 
sequences, more than on its immediately 
attendant circumstances, its importance, 
as an historical event, depends. Great 
actions and striking occurrences, having 
excited a temporary admiration, often 
pass away and are forgotten, because 
they leave no lasting results, affecting 
the prosperity and happiness of commu- 
nities. Such is frequently the fortune 
of the most brilliant military achieve- 
ments. Of the ten thousand battles 
which have been fought, of all the 
fields fertilized with carnage, of the 
banners which have been bathed in 
blood, of the warriors who have hoped 
that they had risen from the field of con- 
quest to a glory as bright and as durable 
as the stars, how few that continue long 
to interest mankind! The victoiy of 
yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to- 
day; the star of military glory, rising 
like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen ; 
disgrace and disaster hang on the heels 
of conquest and renown ; victor and van- 
quished presently pass away to oblivion, 
and the world goes on in its course, with 
the loss only of so many lives and so 
much treasure. 

But if this be frequently, or generally, 

1 For the oriijinal name of what is now Ply- 
mouth, see Lives of American Governors, p. 38, 
note, a work prepared with great care by J. B. 
Moore, Esq. 

2 The twenty -first is now acknowledged to be 
the true anniversary. See the Report of the 
Pilgrim Society on the subject. 



the fortune of mUitaiy achievements, it 
is not always so. There are enterprises, 
military as well as civil, which some- 
times check the current of events, give 
a new turn to human affairs, and trans- 
mit their consequences through ages. 
We see their importance in their results, 
and call them great, because great things 
follow. There have been battles which 
have fixed the fate of nations. These 
come down to us in history with a solid 
and permanent interest, not created by 
a display of glittering armor, the rush 
of adverse battalions, the sinking and 
rising of pennons, the flight, the pursuit, 
and the victory; but by their effect in 
advancing or retarding human knowl- 
edge, in overthrowing or establishing 
despotism, in extending or destroying 
human happiness. When the traveller 
pauses on the plain of Marathon, what 
are the emotions which most strongly 
agitate his breast? What is that glori- 
ous recollection, which thrills through 
his frame, and suffuses his eyes? Not, 
I imagine, that Grecian skill and Gre- 
cian valor were here most signally dis- 
played; but that Greece herself was 
saved. It is because to this spot, and 
to the event which has rendered it im- 
mortal, he refers all the succeeding glo- 
ries of the republic. It is because, if 
that day had gone otherwise, Greece had 
perished. It is because he perceives that 
her philosophers and orators, her poets 
and painters, her sculptors and archi- 
tects, her governments and free institu- 
tions, point backward to Marathon, and 
that their future existence seems to have 
been suspended on the contingency, 
whether the Persian or the Grecian ban- 
ner should wave victorious in the beams 
of that day's setting sun. And, as his 
imagination kindles at the retrospect, he 
is transported back to the interesting 
moment; he counts the fearful odds of 
the contending hosts; his interest for 
the result overwhelms him; he trembles, 
as if it were still uncertain, and seems 
to doubt whether he may consider Soc- 
rates and Plato, Demosthenes, Sopho- 
cles, and Phidias, as secure, yet, to him- 
self and to the world. 

"If we conquer," said the Athenian 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



29 



commander on the approach of that de- 
cisive day, "if we conquer, we shall 
make Athens the greatest city of 
Greece."^ A prophecy how well ful- 
filled! "If God prosper us," might 
have been the more appropriate lan- 
guage of our fathers, when they landed 
upon this Rock, " if God prosper us, we 
shall here begin a work which shall last 
for ages; we shall plant here a new soci- 
ety, in the principles of the fullest lib- 
erty and the purest religion; we shall 
subdue this wilderness which is before 
us ; we shall fill this region of the great 
continent, which stretches almost from 
pole to pole, with civilization and Chris- 
tianity; the temples of the true God 
shall rise, where now ascends the smoke 
of idolatrous sacrifice; fields and gar- 
dens, tlie flowers of summer, and the 
waving and golden harvest of autumn, 
shall spread over a thousand hills, and 
stretch along a thousand valleys, never 
yet, since the creation, reclaimed to the 
use of civilized mau. "We shall whiten 
this coast with the canvas of a prosper- 
ous commerce; we shall stud the long 
and winding shore with a hundred cit- 
ies. That which we sow in weakness 
shall be raised in strength. From our 
sincere, but houseless worship, there 
shall spring splendid temples to record 
God's goodness ; from the simplicity of 
our social union, there shall arise wise 
and politic constitutions of government, 
full of the liberty which we ourselves 
bring and breathe; from our zeal for 
learning, institutions shaU spring which 
shall scatter the light of knowledge 
throughout the land, and, in time, pay- 
ing back where they have borrowed, 
shall contribute their part to the great 
aggregate of human knowledge ; and our 
descendants, through all generations, 
shall look back to this spot, and to this 
hour, with unabated affection and re- 
gard." 

A brief remembrance of the causes 
which led to the settlement of this place ; 
eome account of the peculiarities and 
characteristic qualities of that settle- 

1 Herodot. VL § 109. 



ment, as distinguished from other in- 
stances of colonization ; a short notice of 
the progress of New England in the gi-eat 
interests of society, during the century 
which is now elapsed ; with a few obser- 
vations on the principles upon which so- 
ciety and government are established in 
this country ; comprise all that can be 
attempted, and much more than can be 
satisfactorily performed, on the present 
occasion. 

Of the motives which influenced the 
first settlers to a voluntary exile, in- 
duced them to relinquish their native 
country, and to seek an asylum in this 
then unexplored wilderness, the first and 
principal, no doubt, were comiected with 
religion. They sought to enjoy a higher 
degree of religious freedom, and what 
they esteemed a purer form of religious 
worship, than was allowed to their choice, 
or presented to their imitation, in the 
Old World. The love of religious lib- 
erty is a stronger sentiment, when fully 
excited, than an attachment to civil or 
political freedom. That freedom which 
the conscience demands, and which men 
feel boimd by their hope of salvation to 
contend for, can hardly fail to be at- 
tained. Conscience, in the cause of re- 
ligion and the worship of the Deity, 
prepares the mind to act and to suffer 
beyond almost all other causes. It some- 
times gives an impulse so irresistible, 
that no fetters of power or of opinion 
can withstand it. History instructs us 
that this love of religious liberty, a com- 
pound sentiment in the breast of man, 
made up of the clearest sense of right 
and the highest conviction of duty, is 
able to look the sternest despotism in 
the face, and, with means apparently 
most inadequate, to shake principalities 
and powers. There is a boldness, a 
spirit of daring, in religious reformers, 
not to be measured by the general rides 
which control men's purposes and ac- 
tions. If the hand of power be laid 
upon it, this only seems to augment its 
force and its elasticity, and to cause its 
action to be more formidable and vio- 
lent. Human invention has devised 
nothing, human power has compassed 



80 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



nothing, that can forcibly restrain it, 
■when it breaks forth. Nothing can stop 
it, but to give way to it; nothing can 
check it, but indulgence. It loses its 
power only when it has gained its ob- 
ject. The principle of toleration, to 
which the world has come so slowly, is 
at once the most just and the most wise 
of all principles. Even when religious 
feeling takes a character of extravagance 
and enthusiasm, and seems to threaten 
the order of society and shake the col- 
imans of the social edifice, its principal 
danger is in its restraint. If it be al- 
lowed indulgence and expansion, like 
the elemental fires, it only agitates, and 
perhaps purifies, the atmosphere; while 
its efforts to throw off restraint would 
burst the world asunder. 

It is certain, that, although many of 
them were republicans in principle, we 
have no evidence that our New England 
ancestors would have emigrated, as they 
did, from their own native country, 
would have become wanderers in Europe, 
and finally would have undertaken the 
establishment of a colony here, merely 
from their dislike of the political sys- 
tems of Europe. They fled not so much 
from the civil government, as from the 
hierarchy, and the laws which enforced 
conformity to the church establishment. 
Mr. Robinson had left England as early 
as 1608, on account of the persecutions 
for non-conformity, and had retired to 
Holland. lie left England from no dis- 
appointed ambition in affairs of state, 
from no regrets at the want of prefer- 
ment in the chm-ch, nor from any motive 
of distinction or of gain. Uniformity in 
matters of religion was pressed with such 
extreme rigor, that a voluntary exile 
seemed the most eligible mode of escap- 
ingfrom the penalties of non-compliance. 
The accession of Elizabeth had, it is 
true, quenched the fires of Smithfield, 
and put an end to the easy acquisition of 
the crown of martyrdom. Her long reign 
had established tlie Reformation, but 
toleration was a virtue beyond her con- 
ception, and beyond the age. She left 
no example of it to her successor; and 
he was not of a character which rendered 
it probable that a sentiment either so 



wise or so liberal would originate with 
him. At the present period it seems in- 
ci-edible that the learned, accomplished, 
unassuming, and inoffensive Robinson 
should neither be tolerated in his peace- 
able mode of worship in his own coun- 
try, nor suffered quietly to depart from 
it. Yet such was the fact. He left his 
country by stealth, that he might else- 
where enjoy those rights which ought 
to belong to men in all countries. The 
departure of the Pilgrims for Holland 
is deeply interesting, from its circum- 
stances, and also as it marks the charac- 
ter of the times, independently of its 
connection with names now incorporated 
with the history of empire. The em- 
barkation was intended to be made in 
such a manner that it might escape the 
notice of the officers of government. 
Great pains had been taken to secure 
boats, which should come undiscovered 
to the shore, and receive the fugitives; 
and frequent disappointments had been 
experienced in this respect. 

At length the appointed time came, 
bringing with it unusual severity of cold 
and rain. An unfrequented and barren 
heath, on the shores of Lincolnshire, was 
the selected spot, where the feet of the 
Pilgrims were to tread, for the last time, 
the land of their fathers. The vessel 
which was to receive them did not come 
until the next day, and in the mean 
time the little band was collected, and 
men and woni,en and children and bag- 
gage were crowded together, in melan- 
choly and distressed confusion. The sea 
was rough, and the women and children 
were akeady sick, from their passage 
down the river to the place of embarka- 
tion on the sea. At length the wished- 
f or boat silently and fearfully approaches 
the shore, and men and women and chil- 
dren, shaking with fear and with cold, 
as many as the small vessel could bear, 
venture off on a dangerous sea. Imme- 
diately the advance of horses is heard 
from behind, armed men appear, and 
those not yet embarked are seized and 
taken into custody. In the hurry of the 
moment, the first parties had been sent 
on board without any attempt to keep 
members of the same family together, 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



31 



and on account of the appearance of the 
horsemen, the boat never returned for 
the residue. Those who had got away, 
and those who had not, were in equal 
distress. A storm, of great violence and 
long duration, arose at sea, which not 
only protracted the voyage, rendered dis- 
tressing by the want of all those accom- 
modations which the interruption of the 
embarkation had occasioned, but also 
forced the vessel out of her course, and 
menaced immediate shipwreck ; while 
those on shore, when they were dismissed 
from the custody of the officers of jus- 
tice, having no longer homes or houses 
to retire to, and their friends and pro- 
tectors being already gone, became ob- 
jects of necessary charity, as weU as of 
deep commiseration. 

As this scene passes before us, we can 
hardly forbear asking whether this be a 
band of malefactors and felons flying 
from justice. What are their crimes, 
that they hide themselves in darkness ? 
To what punishment are they exposed, 
that, to avoid it, men, and women, and 
children, thus encounter the surf of the 
North Sea and the terrors of a night 
storm ? What induces this armed pur- 
suit, and this arrest of fugitives, of all 
aires and both sexes ? Truth does not 
allow us to answer these inquiries in a 
manner that does credit to the wisdom 
or the justice of the times. This was 
not the flight of guilt, but of virtue. It 
was an humble and peaceable religion, 
flying from causeless oppression. It was 
conscience, attempting to escape from 
the arbitrary rule of the Stuarts. It was 
Robinson and Brewster, leading off their 
little band from their native soil, at first 
to find shelter on the shore of the neigh- 
boring continent, but ultimately to come 
liitlier; and having surmounted all diffi- 
culties and braved a thousand dangers, 
to find here a place of refuge and of rest. 
Thanks be to God, that this spot was 
honored as the asylum of religious lib- 
erty! May its standard, reared here, re- 
main for ever ! May it rise up as high as 
heaven, till its banner shall fan the air 
of both continents, and wave as a glori- 
ous ensign of peace and security to the 
nations ! 



The peculiar character, condition, and 
circumstances of the colonies which in- 
troduced civilization and an English race 
into New England, afford a most inter- 
esting and extensive topic of discussion. 
On these, much of our subsequent char- 
acter and fortune has depended. Their 
influence has essentially affected our 
whole history, through the two centuries 
which have elapsed; and as they have 
become intimately connected with gov- 
ernment, laws, and property, as w^ell as 
with our opinions on the subjects of re- 
ligion and civil liberty, that influence is 
likely to continue to be felt through the 
centuries which shall succeed. Emigra- 
tion from one region to another, and the 
emission of colonies to people countries 
more or less distant from the residence 
of the parent stock, are common inci- 
dents in the history of mankind ; but it 
has not often, perhaps never, happened, 
that the establishment of colonies should 
be attempted under circumstances, how- 
ever beset with present difficulties and 
dangers, yet so favorable to ultimate 
success, and so conducive to magnificent 
results, as those which attended the first 
settlements on this part of the American 
continent. In other instances, emigra- 
tion has proceeded from a less exalted 
purpose, in periods of less general intel- 
ligence, or more without plan and by 
accident ; or under circumstances, physi- 
cal and moral, less favorable to the ex- 
pectation of laying a foundation for great 
public prosperity and future empire. 

A great resemblance exists, obviously, 
between all the English colonies estab- 
lished within the present limits of the 
United States; but the occasion attracts 
our attention more immediately to those 
which took possession of New England, 
and the peculiarities of these furnish a 
strong contrast with most other instances 
of colonization. 

Among the ancient nations, the Greeks, 
no doul)t, sent forth from their territories 
the greatest number of colonies. So nu- 
merous, indeed, were they, and so great 
the extent of space over which they were 
spread, that the parent country fondly 
and naturally persuaded herself, that by 
means of them she had laid a sure foun- 



32 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAIS'D. 



dation for the universal civilization of 
the world. These establishments, from 
obvious causes, were most numerous in 
places most contiguous; yet they were 
found on the coasts of France, on the 
shores of the Euxine Sea, in Africa, and 
even, as is alleged, on the borders of 
India. These emigrations appear to 
have been sometimes voluntaiy and 
sometimes compidsory; arising from the 
spontaneous enterprise of individuals, 
or the order and regulation of govern- 
ment. It was a common opinion with 
ancient writers, that they were under- 
taken in religious obedience to the com- 
mands of oracles, and it is probable that 
impressions of this sort might have had 
more or less influence ; but it is probable, 
also, that on these occasions the oracles 
did not speak a language dissonant from 
the views and purposes of the state. 

Political science among the Greeks 
seems never to have extended to the 
comprehension of a system, which should 
be adequate to the government of a great 
nation upon principles of liberty. They 
were accustomed only to the contempla- 
tion of small republics, and were led to 
consider an augmented population as in- 
compatible with free institutions. The 
desire of a remedy for this supposed evil, 
and the wish to establish marts for trade, 
led the governments often to undertake 
the establishment of colonies as an affair 
of state expediency. Colonization and 
commerce, indeed, would naturally be- 
come objects of interest to an ingenious 
and enterprising people, inhabiting a 
territory closely circumscribed in its 
limits, and in no small part mountain- 
ous and sterile ; while the islands of the 
adjacent seas, and the promontories and 
coasts of the neighboring continents, by 
their mere proximity, strongly solicited 
the excited spirit of emigration. Such 
was tliis proximity, in many instances, 
that the new settlements appeared rather 
to be the mere extension of popidation 
over contiguous territory, than the es- 
tablishment of distant colonies. In pro- 
portion as they were near to the parent 
state, they would be under its authority, 
and partake of its fortunes. The colony 
at Marseilles might perceive lightly, or 



not at all, the sway of Phocis ; while the 
islands in the ^gean Sea could hardly 
attain to independence of their Athenian 
origin. Many of these establishments 
took place at an early age ; and if there 
were defects in the governments of the 
parent states, the colonists did not pos- 
sess philosophy or experience sufficient 
to correct such evils in their own insti- 
tutions, even if they had not been, by 
other causes, deprived of the power. An 
immediate necessity, connected with the 
support of life, was the main and direct 
inducement to these undertakings, and 
there could hardly exist more than the 
hope of a successful imitation of insti- 
tutions with which they were already 
acquainted, and of holding an equality 
with their neighbors in the course of 
improvement. The laws and customs, 
both political and mimicipal, as well as 
the religious worship of the parent city, 
were transferred to the colony ; and the 
parent city herself, with all such of her 
colonies as were not too far remote for 
frequent intercourse and common senti- 
ments, would appear like a family of 
cities, more or less dependent, and more 
or less connected. We know how imper- 
fect this system was, as a system of gen- 
eral politics, and what scope it gave to 
those mutual dissensions and conflicts 
which proved so fatal to Greece. 

But it is more pertinent to our present 
purpose to observe, that nothing existed 
in the character of Grecian emigTations, 
or in the spirit and iiitelligence of the 
emigrants, likely to give a new and im- 
portant direction to human affairs, or a 
new impulse to the hiunan mind. Their 
motives were not high enough, their 
views were not sufficiently large and 
prospective. They went not forth, like 
our ancestors, to erect systems of more 
perfect civil liberty, or to enjoy a higher 
degree of religious freedom. Above all, 
there was nothing in the religion and 
learning of the age, that could either 
inspire high purposes, or give the ability 
to execute them. Whatever restraints 
on civil liberty, or whatever abuses in 
religious worship, existed at the time of 
our fathers' emigration, yet even then 
all was light in the moral and mental 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



83 



world, in comparison with its condition 
in most periods of the ancient states. 
The settlement of a new continent, in 
an age of jjrogressive knowledge and im- 
provement, could not but do more than 
merely enlarge the natural boundaries of 
the habitable world. It could not but 
do much more even than extend com- 
merce and increase wealth among the 
human race. "We see how this event has 
acted, how it must have acted, and won- 
der only why it did not act sooner, in 
the production of moral effects, on the 
state of human knowledge, the general 
tone of human sentiments, and the pros- 
pects of human happiness. It gave to 
civilized man not only a new continent 
to be inhabited and cultivated, and new 
seas to be explored; but it gave him 
also a new range for his thoughts, new 
objects for curiosity, and new excite- 
ments to knowledge and improvement. 

Roman colonization resembled, far less 
than that of the Greeks, the original 
settlements of this country. Power and 
dominion were the objects of Rome, even 
in her colonial establishments. Her 
whole exterior aspect was for centuries 
hostile and terrific. She grasped at do- 
minion, from India to Britain, and her 
measures of colonization partook of the 
character of her general system. Her 
policy was military, because her objects 
were power, a.scendency, and subjuga- 
tion. Detachments of emigrants from 
Rome incorporated themselves with, and 
governed, the original inliabitants of 
conquered countries. She sent citizens 
where she had first sent soldiers ; her law 
followed her sword. Her colonies were 
a sort of military establishment; so 
many advanced posts in the career of 
her dominion. A governor from Rome 
ruled the new colony with absolute sway, 
and often with unbounded rapacity. In 
Sicily, in Gaul, in Spain, and in Asia, 
the power of Rome prevailed, not nomi- 
nally only, but really and effectually. 
Those who immediately exercised it were 
Roman; the tone and tendency of its 
administration, Roman. Rome herself 
continued to be the heart and centre of 
the great system which she had estab- 
lished. Extortion and rapacity, find- 



ing a wide and often rich field of action 
in the provinces, looked nevertheless to 
the banks of the Tiber, as the scene in 
which their ill-gotten treasures should be 
displayed ; or, if a spirit of more honest 
acquisition prevailed, the object, never- 
theless, was idtimate e^joJ^nent in Rome 
itself. If our own history and our own 
times did not sufficiently expose the in- 
herent and incurable evils of provincial 
government, we might see them por- 
trayed, to our amazement, in the deso- 
lated and ruined provinces of the Roman 
empire. We might hear them, in a 
voice that terrifies us, in those strains 
of complaint and accusation, which the 
advocates of the provinces poured forth 
in the Roman Forvun : — " Quas res 
luxuries in flagitiis, crudelitas in sup- 
pliciis, avaritia in rapinis, superbia in 
contumeliis, efficere potuisset, eas omnes 
sese pertulisse." 

As was to be expected, the Roman 
Provinces partook of the fortunes, as 
well as of the sentiments and general 
character, of the seat of empire. They 
lived together with her, they flourished 
with her, and fell wdth her. The 
branches were lopped away even before 
the vast and venerable trunk itself fell 
prostrate to the earth. Xothing had 
proceeded from her which could support 
itself, and bear up the name of its origin, 
when her o'svni sustaining arm should be 
enfeebled or withdrawn. It was not given 
to Rome to see, either at her zenith or in 
her decline, a child of her own, distant, 
indeed, and independent of her control, 
yet speaking her language and inherit- 
ing her blood, springing forward to a 
competition with her own power, and a 
compai-ison with her own great renown. 
She saw not a vast region of the earth 
peopled from her stock, full of states 
and political communities, improving 
upon the models of her institutions, and 
breathing in fuller measure the spirit 
which she had breathed in the best 
periods of her existence; enjoying and 
extending her arts and her literature; 
rising rapidly from political cliildhood 
to manly strength and independence; 
her offspring, yet now her equal ; uncon- 
nected with the causes which might 



34 



FIKST SETTLEMENT OF KEW ENGLAND. 



affect the duration of her own power 
and greatness; of common origin, but 
not linked to a common fate; giving 
ample pledge, that her name should not 
be forgotten, that her langaiage should 
not cease to be used among men ; that 
whatsoever she had done for human 
knowledge and human happiness should 
be treasured up and preserved ; that the 
record of her existence and her achieve- 
ments should not be obscm-ed, although, 
in the inscrutable purposes of Provi- 
dence, it might be her destiny to fall 
from opulence and splendor; although 
the time might come, when darloiess 
should settle on all her hills; when for- 
eign or domestic violence should overturn 
her altars and her temples ; when igno- 
rance and despotism should fill the places 
where Laws, and Arts, and Liberty had 
flourished; when the feet of barbarism 
should trample on the tombs of her con- 
suls, and the walls of her senate-house 
and forum echo only to the voice of 
savage triumph. She saw not this glori- 
ous vision, to inspire and fortify her 
against the i:>ossible decay or downfall 
of her power. Happy are they who in 
our day may behold it, if they shall con- 
template it with the seiatiments which it 
ought to inspire ! 

The New England Colonies differ quite 
as widely from the Asiatic establishments 
of the modern European nations, as from 
the models of the ancient states. The 
sole object of those establishments was 
originally trade ; although we have seen, 
in one of them, the anomaly of a mere 
trading company attaining a political 
character, disbursing revenues, and main- 
taining armies and fortresses, until it has 
extended its control over seventy mil- 
lions of people. Differing from these, 
and still more from the New 'England 
and North American Colonies, are the 
European settlements in the West Lidia 
Islands. It is not strange, that, when 
men's minds were turned to the settlement 
of America, different objects should be 
proposed by those who emigrated to the 
different regions of so vast a country. 
Climate, soil, and condition were not all 
equally favorable to all pursuits. In 
the West Indies, the purpose of those 



who went thither was to engage in that 
species of agTiculture, suited to the soil 
and climate, which seems to bear more 
resemblance to conamerce than to the 
hard and plain tillage of New England. 
The great staples of these countries, 
being partly an agi-icultural and partly 
a manufactured product, and not being 
of the necessaries of life, become the 
object of calculation, with respect to a 
profitable investment of capital, like any 
other enterprise of trade or manufacture. 
The more especially, as, requiring, by 
necessity or habit, slave labor for their 
production, the capital necessary to ear- 
ly on the work of this production is very 
considerable. The West Indies are re- 
sorted to, therefore, rather for the in- 
vestment of capital than for the pm-pose 
of sustaining life by personal labor. Such 
as possess a considerable amount of capi- 
tal, or such as choose to adventure in 
commercial speculations without capital, 
can alone be fitted to be emigi-ants to 
the islands. The agriculture of these 
regions, as before observed, is a sort of 
commerce ; and it is a species of employ- 
ment in which labor seems to form au 
inconsiderable ingi-edient in the produc- 
tive causes, since the portion of white 
labor is exceedingly small, and slave 
labor is rather more like profit on stock 
or capital than labor properly so called. 
The individual who undertakes an es- 
tablishment of this kind takes into the 
account the cost of the necessary num- 
ber of slaves, in the same manner as lie 
calculates the cost of the land. The un- 
certainty, too, of this species of employ- i 
ment, affords another ground of resem- ^ 
blance to commerce. Although gainful 
on the whole, and in a series of years, it 
is often very disastrous for a single j'ear, 
and, as the capital is not readily invested . 
in other pursuits, bad crops or bad mar- 
kets not only affect the profits, but the 
capital itself. Hence the sudden depres- 
sions which take place in the value of 
such estates. 

But the great and leading observation, 
relative to these establishments, remains 
to be made. It is, that the owners of 
the soil and of the cajiital seldom con- 
sider themselves at home in the colony. 



I 



FIKST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



35 



A very great portion of the soil itself is 
nsually owned in the mother conntry; a 
still greater is mortgaged for capital ob- 
tained there; and, in general, those who 
are to derive an interest from the prod- 
ucts look to the parent countiy as the 
place for enjoyment of their wealth. The 
population is therefore constantly fluc- 
tuating. Nobody comes but to return. 
A constant succession of owners, agents, 
and factors takes place. Whatsoever the 
soil, forced by the unmitigated toil of 
slavery, can yield, is sent home to defray 
rents, and interest, and agencies, or to 
give the means of living in a better so- 
ciety. In sutu a state, it is evident that 
no spirit of permanent improvement is 
likely to spring iip. Profits will not be 
invested with a distant view of benefit- 
ing posterity. Roads and canals will 
hardly be built ; schools will not be 
founded; colleges will not be endowed. 
There will be few fixtures in society; 
no principles of utility or of elegance, 
planted now, with the hope of being de- 
veloped and expanded hereafter. Profit, 
immediate profit, must be the principal 
active spring in the social system. There 
may be many particular exceptions to 
these general remarks, but the outline of 
the whole is such as is here drawn. 

Another most important consequence 
of such a state of things is, that no idea 
of independence of the parent country is 
likely to arise; unless, indeed, it should 
spring up in a form that would threaten 
universal desolation. The inhabitants 
have no strong attachment to the place 
which they inhabit. The hope of a 
great portion of them is to leave it ; and 
their gi-eat desire, to leave it soon. How- 
ever useful they may be to the parent 
state, how much soever they may add to 
the conveniences and luxuries of life, 
these colonies are not favored spots for 
the expansion of the human mind, for 
the progress of permanent improvement, 
or for sowing the seeds of future inde- 
pendent empire. 

Different, indeed, most widely differ- 
ent, from all these instances of emigra- 
tion and plantation, were the condition, 
the purposes, and the prospects of our 
fathers, when they established their in- 



fant colony upon this spot. They came 
hither to a land from which they were 
never to return. Hither they had brought, 
and here they were to fix, their hopes, 
their attachments, and their objects in 
life. Some natural tears they shed, as 
they left the pleasant abodes of their 
fathers, and some emotions they sup- 
pressed, when the white cliffs of their 
native country, now seen for the last 
time, grew dim to their sight. They 
were acting, however, upon a resolution 
not to be daunted. With whatever sti- 
fled regrets, with whatever occasional 
hesitation, with whatever appalling ap- 
prehensions, which might sometimes 
arise with force to shake the firmest 
purpose, they had yet committed them- 
selves to Heaven and the elements ; and 
a thousand leagues of water soon inter- 
posed to separate them for ever from the 
region which gave them birth. A new 
existence awaited them here ; and when 
they saw these shores, rough, cold, bar- 
barous, and barren, as then they were, 
they beheld their country. That mixed 
and strong feeling, which we call loA^e 
of coiintrj', and which is, in general, 
never extin""uished in the heart of man, 
grasped and embraced its proper object 
here. Whatever constitutes countn/, ex- 
cept the earth and the sun, all the moral 
causes of affection and attachment which 
operate upon the heart, they had brought 
with them to their new abode. Here 
were now their families and friends, 
their homes, and their property. Before 
they reached the shore, they had estab- 
lished the elements of a social system. i 
and at a much earlier period had settled 
their forms of religious worship. At the 
moment of their landing, therefore, they 
possessed institutions of government, and 
institutions of religion: and friends and 
families, and social and religious insti- 
tutions, framed by consent, founded on 
choice and preference, how nearly do 

1 For the compact to which reference is 
made in the text, sipned on board the May- 
flower, see Iliitchinson'.s History, Vol. II., Ap- 
pendi.x. No. I. For an eloquent description of 
the manner in which the first Christian Sabbath 
was passed on board the Maytiower, at Ply- 
mouth, see Barnes's Discourse at Worcester. 



36 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NE^Y ENGLAND. 



^f 



these fill up our whole idea of country ! 
The morning that beamed on the first 
night of their repose saw the Pilgi-ims 
already at home in their country. There 
were political institutions, and civil lib- 
erty, and religious worship. Poetry has 
fancied nothing, in the wanderings of 
heroes, so distinct and characteristic. 
Here was man, indeed, unprotected, and 
unpi'ovided for, on the shore of a rude 
and fearful wilderness ; but it was poli- 
tic, intelligent, and educated man. Ev- 
ery thing was civilized but the j^hysical 
world. Institutions, containing in sub- 
stance all that ages had done for human 
government, were organized in a forest. 
Cultivated mind was to act on uncul- 
tivated nature; and, more than all, a 
government and a counti-y were to com- 
mence, with the very first foundations 
laid under the divine liglit of the Chris- 
tian religion. Happy auspices of a haji- 
py futurity! Who would wish that his 
country's existence had otherwise begun ? 
Who would desire the power of going- 
back to, the ages of fable ? Who would 
wish for an origin obscured in tlie dark- 
ness of antiquity ? Who would wish for 
other emblazoning of his country's her- 
aldry, or other ornaments of her geneal- 
ogy, than to be able to say, that her first 
existence was with intelligence, her first 
breath the inspiration of liberty, her 
first principle the truth of divine re- 
ligion ? 

Local attachments and sympathies 
would ere long spring up in the breasts 
of our ancestors, endearing to them the 
place of their refuge. Wliatever natural 
objects are associated with interesting 
scenes and high efforts obtain a hold on 
human feeling, and demand from the 
heart a sort of recognition and regard. 
This Rock soon became hallowed in the 
esteem of the Pilgrims, ^ and these hills 

1 The names of the passenffers in tlie May- 
flower, with some account of them, may be 
found in the New Enghmd Genealogical Uegis- 
ter, Vol. I. p. 47, and a narration of some of the 
incidents of the voyage, Vol. II. p. 180. For 
an account of Mrs. White, the mother of the 
first child born in New England, see Baylies's 
History of Plymouth, Vol. II. p. 18, and for a 
notice of her son Peregrine, see Moore's Lives 
of American Governors, Vol. I. p. 31, note. 



grateful to their sight. Neither they nor 
their children were again to till the soil 
of England, nor again to traverse the 
seas which surround her.^ But here was 
a new sea, now open to their enterprise, 
and a new soil, which had not failed to 
respond gratefully to their laborious in- 
dustry, and Avhich was already assuming 
a robe of verdure. Hardly had they pro- 
vided shelter for the living, ere they were 
summoned to erect sepulchres for the 
dead.' The gTound had become sacred, 
by enclosing the remains of some of their 
companions and connections. A parent, 
a child, a husband, or a wife, had gone 
the way of all flesh, and mingled with 
the dust of New England. We natu- 
rally look with strong emotions to the 
spot, though it be a wilderness, where 
the ashes of those we have loved repose. 
Where the heart has laid down what it 
loved most, there it is desirous of laying : 
itself down. No sculptured marble, no 
enduring monument, no honorable in- 
scription, no ever-burning taper that 
would di'ive away the darkness of the 
tomb, can soften our sense of the reality 
of death, and hallow to our feelings the 
ground which is to cover us, like the 
consciousness that we shall sleep, dust 
to dust, with the objects of our affec- 
tions. 

In a short time otlier causes sprung 
up to bind the Pilgrims with new cords 
to their chosen land. Children were 
born, and the hopes of future genera- 
tions arose, in the spot of their new 
habitation. The second generation 
found this the land of their nativity, 
and saw that they were bound to its 
fortunes. They beheld their fathers' 
graves around them, and while they 
read the memorials of their toils and 
labors, they rejoiced in tlie inheritance 
which they found bequeathed to them. 

Under the influence of these causes, 
it was to be expected that an interest 
and a feeling should arise here, entirely 
different from the interest and feeling 
of mere Englishmen; and all the subse- 

2 See the admirable letter written on board 
the Arbella, in Hutchinson's History, Vol. I., 
Appendix, No. I. 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



o7 



quent history of the Colonies proves this 
to have actually and gradually taken 
place. With a general acknowledgment 
of the supremacy of the British crown, 
there was, from the first, a repugnance 
tn an entire submission to the control of 
Britisli legislation. The Colonies stood 
upon their charters, which, as they con- 
tended, exempted them from the ordi- 
nary power of the British rarliament, 
and authorized them to conduct their 
own concerns by their own counsels. 
They utterly resisted the notion that 
tl icy were to be ruled by the mere au- 
tliority of the government at home, and 
would not endure even that their own 
irter governments should be estab- 



Cll 



li^hed on the other side of the Atlantic. 
it was not a controlling or protecting 
lituird in England, but a government of 
their own, and existing immediately 
w ithin their limits, which could satisfy 
their wishes. It was easy to foresee, 
what we know also to have happened, 
that the first great cause of collision and 
jealousy w'ould be, under the notion of 
political economy then and still preva- 
leiit in Europe, an attempt on the part 
of the mother country to monopolize the 
trade of the Colonies. Whoever has 
looked deeply into the causes which pro- 
duced our Revolution has found, if I 
mistake not, the original principle far 
back in this claim, on the part of Eng- 
land, to monopolize our trade, and a 
continued effoi-t on the part of the Colo- 
nies to resist or evade that monopoly; 
if, indeed, it be not still more just and 
philosophical to go farther back, and to 
consider it decided, that an independent 
government must arise here, the moment 
it was a.scertained that an English 
colony, such as landed in tliis place, 
could sustain itself against the dangers 
which surrounded it, and, with other 
similar establishments, overspread the 
land with an English population. Ac- 
cidental causes retarded at times, and at 
times accelerated, the progress of the 
controversy. The Colonies wanted 
strength, and time gave it to tliem. 
They required measures of strong and 
palpable injustice, on the part of tlie 
mother country, to justify resistance; 



the early part of the late king's reign 
furnished them. They needed spirits 
of high order, of great daring, of long 
foresight, and of connnanding power, to 
seize the favoring occasion to strike a 
blow, which should sever, for all time, 
the tie of colonial dependence; and 
these spirits were found, in all the ex- 
tent which that or any crisis could de- 
mand, in Otis, Adams, Hancock, and 
the other immediate authors of our 
independence. 

Still, it is true that, for a century, 
causes had been in operation tending to 
prepare things for this great result. In 
the year l(i60 the English Act of Navi- 
gation was passed; the first and grand 
object of which seems to have been, to 
secure to England the whole trade with 
her plantations. 1 It was provided by 
that act, that none but English ships 
should transport American produce over 
the ocean, and that the principal articles 
of that produce should be allowed to be 
sold only in the markets of the mother 
country. Three years afterwards' an- 
other law was passed, which enacted, 
that such commodities as the Colonies 
might wish to purchase should be 
bought only in the markets of the 
mother country. Severe rules were pre- 
scribed to enforce the provisions of these 
laws, and heavy penalties imposed on 
all who should violate them. In the 
subsequent years of the same- reign, 
other statutes were enacted to re-enforce 
these statutes, and other rules pre- 
scribed to secure a compliance with 
these rules. In this manner was the 
trade to and from the Colonies re- 
stricted, almost to the exchisive ad- 
vantage of the parent country. But 
laws, which rendered the interest of a 
whole people subordinate to that of an- 
other people, were not likely to execute 
themselves; nor was it easy to find 
many on the spot, who could be de- 

1 In reference to tlie British policy respect- 
ing Colonial nianufiictures, see Representations 
of the Board of Trade to the House of Lords, 
2.3d Jan., 1734; also, 8th .June, 1749. For an 
able vindication of tiie British Colonial policy, 
see " I'dlitical Kssays con.ernin;; tlie Pn-cnt 
State of the British Empire." London, 1772. 



38 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND, 



pended upon for carrying them into 
execution. In fact, these laws were 
more or less evaded or resisted, in all 
the Colonies. To enforce them was the 
constant endeavor of the government at 
liome ; to prevent or elude their opera- 
tion, the perpetual object here. " The 
laws of navigation," says a living Brit- 
ish writer, "were nowhere so openly 
disobeyed and contemned as in New 
England." " The people of Massachu- 
setts Bay," he adds, " were from the 
first disposed to act as if independent 
of the mother country, and having a 
governor and magistrates of their own 
choice, it was difficult to enforce any 
regulation which came from the Eng- 
lish Parliament, adverse to their inter- 
ests." To provide more effectually for 
the execution of these laws, we know 
that courts of admiralty were afterwards 
established by the crown, with power to 
try revenue causes, as questions of ad- 
miralty, upon the construction given by 
the crown lawyers to an act of Parlia- 
ment ; a great departure from the ordi- 
nary principles of English jurispru- 
dence, but which has been maintained, 
nevertheless, by the force of habit and 
precedent, and is adopted in our own 
existing systems of government. 

"There lie," says another English 
writer, whose connection with the Board 
of Trade has enabled him to ascertain 
many facts connected with Colonial his- 
tory, " There lie among the documents 
in the board of trade and state-paper 
offiice, the most satisfactory proofs, from 
the ej^och of the English Revolution in 
1(388, throughout every reign, and dur- 
ing every administration, of the settled 
purpose of the Colonies to acquire direct 
independence and positive sovereignty." 
Perhaps this may be stated somewhat 
too strongly; but it cainiot be denied, 
that, from the very nature of the estab- 
lishments here, and from the general 
character of the measures respecting 
their concerns early adopted and stead- 
ily pursued by the Englisii government, 
a division of the empire was the natural 
and necessary result to which every 
thing tended.^ 

1 Many interesting papers, illustrating the 



I have dwelt on this topic, because it 
seems to me, that the peculiar original 
character of the New England Colonies, 
and certain causes coeval with their ex- 
istence, have had a strong and decided 
influence on all their subsequent history, 
and especially on the great event of the 
Revolution. Whoever would write our 
history, and would understand and ex- 
plain early transactions, should compre- 
hend the nature and force of the feeling 
which I have endeavored to describe. 
As a son, leaving the house of his father 
for his own, finds, by the order of 
nature, and the very law of his being, 
nearer and dearer objects around which 
his affections circle, while his attach- 
ment to the parental roof becomes 
moderated, by degrees, to a composed 
reofard and an affectionate remem- 
brance; so our ancestors, leaving their 
native land, not without some violence 
to the feelings of nature and affection, 
yet, in time, found here a new circle of 
engagements, interests, and affections; 
a feeling, which more and more eu- 
croached upon the old, till an undivided 
sentiment, that this was their country, 
occupied the heart; and patriotism, 
shutting out from its embraces the par- 
ent realm, became local to America. 

Some retrospect of the century which 
has now elapsed is among the duties of 
the occasion. It must, however, neces- 
sarily be imperfect, to be compressed 
within the limits of a single discourse. 
I shall content myself, therefore, with 
taking notice of a few of the leading 
and most important occurrences which 
have distinguished the period. 

When the first century closed, the prog- 
ress of the country appeared to have been 
considerable ; notwithstanding that, in 
comparison with its subsequent advance- 
ment, it now seems otherwise. A broad 
and lasting foundation had been laid; 
excellent institutions had been estab- 
lished ; many of the prejudices of former 
times had been removed ; a more liberal 

early history of the Colony, may be found in 
Hutchinson's "Collection of Ori<iinal Papers 
relating to the History of the Colony of Massa- 
chusetts Baj'." 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



39 



and catholic spirit on subjects of relig- 
ious concern had begun to extend itself, 
and many things conspired to give prom- 
ise of increasing f utui-e prosperity. Great 
men had arisen in public life, and the 
liberal professions. The JNLathers, father 
and son, Avere then sinking low in the 
western horizon; Leverett, the leai*ned, 
the accomplished, the excellent Leverett, 
was about to withdraw his brilliant and 
useful light. In Pemberton great hopes 
had been suddenly extinguished, but 
Prince and Colman were in oiu- sky ; and 
along the east had begun to flash the 
crepuscular light of a great Imninary 
which was about to appear, and which 
was to stamp the age with his own name, 
as the age of Franklin. 

The bloody Indian wars, which har- 
assed the people for a part of the first 
century ; the restrictions on the trade of 
the Colonies, added to the discourage- 
ments inherently belonging to all forms 
of colonial government ; the distance 
from Europe, and the small hope of im- 
mediate profit to adventurers, are among 
the causes which had contributed to re- 
tard the progress of population. Per- 
haps it may be added, also, that during 
the period of the civil wars in England, 
and the reign of Cromwell, many per- 
sons, whose religious opinions and re- 
ligious temper might, under other cir- 
cumstances, have induced them to join 
the Xew England colonists, found rea- 
sons to remain in England; either on 
account of active occupation in the scenes 
which were passing, or of an anticipation 
of the enjoyment, in their own countiy, 
of a form of government, civil and re- 
ligious, accommodated to their views 
and principles. The Aiolent measures, 
too, pursued against the Colonies in the 
reign of Charles the Second, the mock- 
ery of a trial, and the forfeiture of the 
charters, were serious evils. And during 
the open violences of the short reign of 
James the Second, and the tyranny of An- 
dros, as the venerable historian of Con- 
necticut observes, "All the motives to 
great actions, to industry, economy, en- 
terprise, wealth, and population, were in 
a manner annihilated. A general inac- 
tivity and languishment pervaded the 



public body. Liberty, property, and 
every thing which ought to be dear to 
men, every day grew more and more in- 
secure." 

With the Revolution in England, a 
better prospect had opened on tliis coun- 
try, as well as on that. The joy had 
been as great at that event, and far more 
universal, in New than in Old EiiHand. 
A new charter had been granted to Mas- 
sachusetts, which, although it did not 
confirm to her inhabitants all theii" for- 
mer privileges, yet relieved them from 
great evils and embarrassments, and 
promised future security. More tlian 
all, pei'haps, the Revolution in England 
had done good to the general cause of 
liberty and justice. A blow had been 
struck in favor of the rights and liber- 
ties, not of England alone, but of de- 
scendants and kinsmen of England all 
over the world. Great political truths 
had been established. The champions 
of liberty had been successful in a fear- 
ful and perilous conflict: Somers, and 
Cavendish, and Jekyl, and Howard, had 
triumphed in one of the most noble 
causes ever undertaken by men. A revo- 
lution had been made upon principle. A 
monarch had been dethroned for violat- 
ing the original compact between king 
and people. The rights of the people 
to partake in the government, and to 
limit the monarch by fundamental rules 
of government, had been maintained; 
and however unjust the government of 
England might afterwai'ds be towards 
other governments or towards her colo- 
nies, she had ceased to be governed her- 
self by the arbitrary maxims of the 
Stuarts. 

New England had submitted to the 
violence of James the Second not longer 
than Old England. Not oidy was it re- 
served to Massachusetts, that on her soil 
should be acted the first scene of that 
great revolutionary drama, which was to 
take place near a century afterwards, but 
the English Revolution itself, as far as 
the Colonies were concerned, commenced 
in Boston. The .seizure and imprison- 
ment of Andros, in April, 1061), were 
acts of direct and forcible resistance to 
the authority of James the Second. The 



40 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



pulse of liberty beat as high in the ex- 
tremities as at the heart. The vigorous 
feeling of the Colony burst out before it 
was known how the parent country would 
finally conduct herself. The king's rep- 
resentative, Sir Edmund Andros, Mas a 
prisoner in the castle at Boston, before 
it was or could be known that the king 
himself had ceased to exercise his full 
dominion on the English throne. 

Before it was known here whether the 
invasion of the Prince of Orange would 
or could prove successful, as soon as it 
was known that it had been undertaken, 
the people of IMassachusetts, at the im- 
minent hazard of their lives and fortunes, 
had accomplished the Revolution as far 
as respected themselves. It is probable 
that, reasoning on general principles and 
the known attachment of the English 
people to their constitution and liberties, 
and their deep and fixed dislike of the 
king's religion and politics, the people 
of New England expected a catastrophe 
fatal to the power of the reigning prince. 
Yet it was neither certain enough, nor 
near enough, to come to their aid against 
the authority of the crown, in that crisis 
which had arrived, and in which they 
trusted to put themselves, relying on God 
and their own courage. There were spir- 
its in ]\Lassachusetts congenial with the 
spirits of the distinguished friends of 
the Revolution in England. There were 
those who were fit to associate with the 
boldest asserters of civil liberty; and 
Mather himself, then in England, was 
not unworthy to be ranked with those 
sons of the Church, whose firnniess and 
spirit in resisting kingly encroachments 
in matters of religion, entitled them to 
the gratitude of their own and succeed- 



nisr aires. 



The second century opened upon New 
England under circumstances which 
evinced that nuich had already been ac- 
complished, and that still better pros- 
pects and brighter hopes were before 
her. She had laid, deep and strong, the 
foundations of her societv. Her relisr- 
iou.s principles were firm, and her moral 
habits exemplary. Her public schools 
had begun to diffuse widely the elements 
of knowledge ; and the College, under 



the excellent and acceptable administra- 
tion of Leverett, had been raised to a 
high degi'ee of credit and usefulness. 

The commercial character of the coun- 
try, notwithstanding all discouragements, 
had begun to display itself, and Jive hun- 
dred vesseh, then belonging to Massa- 
chusetts, placed her, in relation to com- 
merce, thus early at the head of the 
Colonies. An author who wrote very 
near the close of the first century says: — 
" New England is almost deserving that 
nohle name, so mightily hath it increased ; 
and from a small settlement at first, is 
now become a very populous and flour- 
ishing government. The capital city, 
Boston, is a place of great wealth and 
trade ; and by much the largest of any 
in the English einpire of America; and 
not exceeded but by few cities, perhaps 
two or three, in all the American world. " 

But if our ancestors at the close of the 
first century could look back with joy 
and even admiration, at the progress of 
the country, what emotions must we not 
feel, when, from the point on which we 
stand, we also look back and run along 
the events of the century which has 
now closed ! The country which then, 
as we have seen, was thought desei'v- 
ing of a "noble name," — which then 
had " mightily increased," and become 
"very jwpulous," — what was it, in 
comparison with what our eyes behold 
it? At that period, a very great projx)r- 
tion of its inhabitants lived in the east- 
ern section of Massachusetts proper, and 
in Plymouth Colony. In Connecticut, 
there were towns along the coast, some 
of them respectable, but in the interior 
all was a wilderness beyond Hartford. 
On Connecticut River, settlements had 
proceeded as far up as Deerfield, and 
Fort Dummer had been built near where 
is now the south line of New Hamp- 
shire. In New Hampshire no settle- 
ment was then begun thirty miles from 
the mouth of Piscataqua River, and in 
what is now Maine the inhabitants were 
confined to the coast. The aggregate of 
the whole population of New England 
did not exceed one hundred and sixty 
thousand. Its present amount (1820) 
is probably one million seven hundred 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



41 



thousand. Instead of being confined 
to its former limits, her population has 
rolled backward, and filled up the spaces 
iucliided within her actual local boun- 
daries. Not this only, but it has over- 
Howed those boundaries, and the waves 
of emigration have pressed farther and 
fartiier toward the West. The Alleghany 
has not checked it; the banks of the 
Ohio liave been covered with it. New 
England farms, houses, villages, and 
churches spread over and adorn the im- 
mense extent from the Ohio to Lake Erie, 
and stretch along fi-oni the Alleghany 
onwards, beyond the Miamis, and toward 
the Falls of St. Anthony. Two thousand 
miles westward from the rock where 
their fathers landed, may now be found 
the sons of the Pilgrims, cultivating 
smiling fields, rearing towns and vil- 
lages, and cherishing, we trust, the pat- 
rimonial blessings of wise institutions, 
of liberty, and religion. The world has 
seen nothing like this. Regions large 
enough to be empires, and which, half a 
century ago, were known only as remote 
and unexplored wildernesses, are now 
teeming with population, and prosperous 
in all the great concerns of life; in good 
governments, the means of subsistence, 
and social happiness. It may be safely 
asserted, that there are now more than 
a million of people, descendants of New 
England ancestry, living, free and hap- 
py, in regions which scarce sixty years 
ago were tracts of unpenetrated forest. 
Nor do rivers, or mountains, or seas re- 
sist the progress of industry and enter- 
prise. Erelong, the sons of the Pilgrims 
will be on the shores of the Pacific' The 
imagination hardly keeps pace with the 
progress of population, improvement, 
and civilization. 

It is now five-and-forty years since the 
gi'owth and rising gloiy of Amei'ica were 
portrayed in the English Parliament, 
with inimitable beauty, by the most con- 
smmnate orator of modern times. Go- 
ing back somewhat more than half a 
century, and describing our progress as 

1 In reference to the fulfilment of this pre- 
diction, see Mr. Webster's .\ddress at the Cele- 
bration ot the New Kn^land Society of New 
York, on the 23d of December, 1850. 



foreseen from that point by his amiable 
friend Lord Bathurst, then living, he 
spoke of the wonderfid progress which 
America had made during the period of 
a single human life. There is no Amer- 
ican heart, T imagine, that does not 
glow, both with conscious, patriotic 
pride, and admiration for one of the 
happiest efforts of eloquence, so often 
as the vision of " that little speck, scarce 
visible in the mass of national interest, 
a small seminal principle, rather than a 
formed body," and the progi-ess of its 
astonishing development and growth, 
are recalled to. the recollection. But a 
stronger feeling might be produced, if 
we were able to take up this prophetic 
description where he left it, and, placing 
ourselves at the point of time in which 
he was speaking, to set forth with equal 
felicity the subsequent progress of the 
country. There is yet among the liv- 
ing a most distinguished and venerable 
name, a descendant of the Pilgrims; one 
who has been attended through life by a 
great and fortunate genius ; a man illus- 
trious by his own great merits, and 
favored of Heaven in the long continua- 
tion of his years. 2 The time when the 
English orator was thus speaking of 
America preceded but by a few days 
the actual opening of the revolutionary 
drama at Lexington. He to whom I 
have alluded, then at the age of forty, 
was among the most zealous and able 
defenders of the violated rights of his 
country. He seemed already to have 
filled a full measure of public service, 
and attained an honorable fame. The 
moment was full of difficulty and dan- 
ger, and big with events of inmieasura- 
ble importance. The country was on 
the very brink of a civil war, of wliich 
no man could foretell the duration or 
the result. Something more than a 
courageous hope, or characteristic ardor, 
would have been necessary to impress 
the glorious prosjiect on his belief, if, at 
that moment, before the sound of the 
first shock of actual war had reached his 
ears, some attendant spirit had opened 

2 .Tohn Adams, second President of the 
United States. 



42 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



to him the vision of the future ; — if it 
had said to him, " Tlie blow is struck, 
and America is severed from England 
for ever!" — if it had informed him, 
that h(^ liimself , during the next annual 
revolution of tlie sun, sliould put his 
own hand to the great instrument of in- 
de])endenc<', and write liis name where 
all nations sliould behold it and all time 
should not efface it; that erelong he 
himself should maintain the interests 
and represent the sovereignty of his new- 
born country in the proudest courts of 
Europe ; that he should one day exercise 
her supreme magistracy; that he should 
yet live to behold ten millions of fellow- 
citizens paying him the homage of their 
deepest gratitude and kindest affections ; 
that lie sliould see distinguished talent 
and high public trust resting where his 
name rested; that he should even see 
with his own unclouded eyes the close of 
the second century of New England, 
who had begun life almost with its com- 
mencement, and lived through nearly 
half the whole history of his country; 
and that on the morning of this auspi- 
cious day he should be found in the 
political councils of his native State, re- 
vising, by the light of experience, that 
system of government which forty years 
before he had assisted to frame and es- 
tablish; and, great and happy as he 
should then behold his country, there 
should be nothing in prospect to cloud 
the scene, nothing to check the ardor of 
that confident and patriotic hope which 
sliould glow in his bosom to the end of 
his long protracted and ha[ipy life. 

It would far exceed the limits of this 
discourse even to mention the principal 
events in the civil and political history 
of New England during the century ; the 
more so, as for the last half of the 
period that history has, most happily, 
been closelv interwoven with the aeneral 
history of tlie United States. New Eng- 
land bore an honorable part in the wars 
which took place between England and 
France. The capture of Louisburg gave 
her a character for military achieve- 
ment ; and in the war w hich terminated 
with the peace of 1703, her exertions on 
the frontiers were of most essential ser- 



vice, as well to the mother country as to 
all the Colonies. 

In New^ England the war of the Rev- 
olution commenced. I address those 
who remember the memorable 19th of 
April, 1775; who shortly after saw the 
burning spires of Charlestown ; who be- 
held the deeds of Prescott, and heard the 
voice of Putnam amidst the storm of 
war, and saw the generous Warren fall, 
the first distinguished Adctim in the 
cause of liberty. It would be supei-flu- 
ous to say, that no portion of the coun- 
try did more than the States of New 
England to bring the Revolutionary 
struggle to a successful issue. It is 
scarcely less to her credit, that she saw 
early the necessity of a closer imion of 
the States, and gave an efficient and in- 
dispensable aid to the establishment and 
organization of the Federal government. 

Perhaps we might safely say, that a 
new spirit and a new excitement began to 
exist here about the middle of the last 
century. To whatever causes it may 
be imputed, there seems then to have 
commenced a more rapid improvement. 
The Colonies had attracted more of the 
attention of the mother country, and 
some renown in arms had been ac- 
quired. Lord Chatham was the first 
English minister who attached high im- 
portance to these possessions of the 
crown, and who foresaw any thing of 
their future growth and extension. His 
opinion was, that the great rival of Eng- 
land was chiefly to be feared as a mari- 
time and commercial power, and to 
drive her out of North America and de- 
prive her of her West Indian possessions 
was a leading object in his policy. He 
dwelt often on the fisheries, as nurseries 
for British seamen, and the colonial 
trade, as furnishing them employment. 
The war, conducted by him with so 
much vigor, terminated in a peace, by 
which Canada was ceded to England. 
The effect of this was immediately visi- 
ble in the New England Colonies ; for, 
the fear of Indian hostilities on the fron- 
tiers being now happily removed, settle- 
ments went on with an activity before 
that time altogether unprecedented, and 
public affairs wore a new and encoui'- 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



43 



aging aspect. Shortly after this fortu- 
nate termination of the French war, the 
interesting topics connected witli the 
taxation of America by tlie Britisli Par- 
liament began to be discussed, and the 
attention and all the faculties of the 
people drawn towards them. There is 
2:)erhaps no portion of our history more 
full of interest than the period from 
1760 to the actual commencement of the 
war. The progress of opinion in this 
]>eriod, though less known, is not less 
ini[iortant than the progress of arms 
afterwards. Nothing deserves more con- 
sideration than those events and discus- 
sions which affected the public sentiment 
and settled the Revolution in men's 
minds, before hostilities openly broke 
out. 

Internal improvement followed the es- 
tablishment and prosperous commence- 
ment of the present government. More 
has been done for roads, canals, and 
other public works, within the last thirty 
years, than in all our fornrer history. 
In the first of these particulars, few- 
countries excel the Xew England States. 
The astonishing increase of their navi- 
gation and trade is known to every one, 
and now belongs to the history of our 
national wealth. 

We may flatter ourselves, too, that 
literature and taste have not been sta- 
tionary, and that some advancement has 
been made in the elegant, as well as in 
the useful arts. 

The nature and constitution of society 
and government in this country are in- 
teresting topics, to which I would de- 
vote what remains of the time allowed 
to this occasion. Of our system of gov- 
ernment the first thing to be said is, that 
it is really and practically a free system. 
It originates entirely with the people, 
and rests on no other foundation than 
their assent. To judge of its actual op- 
eration, it is not enough to look merely 
at the form of its construction. The 
practical character of government de- 
pends often on a variety of consider- 
ations, besides the abstract frame of 
its constitutional organization. Among 
these are the condition and tenure of 



property ; the laws regulating its aliena- 
tion and descent ; the presence or absence 
of a military power ; an armed or unarmed 
yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the 
degree of geneml intelligence. In these 
respects it cannot be denied that the cir- 
cumstances of this country are most 
favorable to the hope of maiutaining the 
government of a great nation on princi- 
ples entirely popular. In the absence of 
military power, the nature of govern- 
ment must essentially depend on the 
manner in which property is holden and 
distributed. There is a natural influ- 
ence belonging to property, whether it 
exists in many hands or few ; and it is 
on the rights of i)roperty that both des- 
potism and um-estraiued popular violence 
ordinarily commence their attacks. Our 
ancestors began their system of govern- 
ment here under a condition of compar- 
ative equality in regard to wealth, and 
their early laws were of a nature to favor 
and continue this equality. 

A republican form of government rests 
not more on political constitutions, than 
on those laws which regulate the descent 
and transmission of property. Govern- 
ments like oms could not have been 
maintained, where property was holden 
according to the principles of the feudal 
system; nor, on the other hand, could 
the feudal constitution possibly exist 
with us. Our New England ancestors 
brought hither no great capitals ftom 
Europe; and if they had, there was 
nothing productive in which they could 
have been invested. They left behind 
them the whole feudal jwlicy of the 
other continent. They broke away at 
once from the system of military service 
established in the Dark Ages, and which 
continues, down even to the ju-esent 
time, more or less to affect the condi- 
tion of property all over Europe. They 
came to a new country. There were, as 
yet, no lands yielding rent, and no ten- 
ants rendering service. The whole .soil 
was unreclaimed from barbarism. They 
were themselves, either from their origi- 
nal condition, or from the necessity of 
their common interest, nearly ou a gen- 
eral level in respect to property. Their 
situation demanded a parcelling out uud 



44 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



division of the lands, and it may be 
fairly said, that this necessary act fixed 
the future frame and form of their gov- 
ernment. The character of their politi- 
cal institutions was determined by the 
fundamental laws respecting property. 
The laws rendered estates divisible 
among sons and daughters. The right 
of primogeniture, at first limited and 
curtailed, was afterwards abolished. 
The property was all freehold. The 
entailment of estates, long trusts, and 
the other processes for fettering and ty- 
ing up inheritances, were not applicable 
to the condition of society, and seldom 
made use of. On the contrary, aliena- 
tion of the land was every way facili- 
tated, even to the subjecting of it to 
every species of debt. The establish- 
ment of public registries, and the sim- 
plicity of our forms of conveyance, have 
greatly facilitated the change of real 
estate from one proprietor to another. 
The consequence of all these causes has 
been a great subdivision of the soil, and 
a great equality of condition; the true 
basis, most certainly, of a popular gov- 
ernment. "If the people," says Har- 
rington, " hold three parts in four of the 
territory, it is plain there can neither 
be any single person nor nobility able to 
dispute the government with them; in 
this case, therefore, except force be inter- 
posed, they govern themselves." 

The history of other nations may 
teach us how favorable to public liberty 
are the division of the soil into small 
freeholds, and a system of laws, of which 
the tendency is, without violence or in- 
justice, to produce and to preserve a 
degree of equality of property. It has 
been estimated, if I mistake not, that 
about the time of Hemy the Seventh 
four fifths of the land in England was 
holden by the great barons and ecclesi- 
astics. The effects of a growing com- 
merce soon afterwards began to break in 
on this state of things, and before the 
Kevolution, in 1G88, avast change had 
been wrought. It may be thought prob- 
able, that, for the last half-century, 
the process of subdivision in England 
has been retarded, if not reversed; that 
the great weight of taxation has com- 



pelled many of the lesser freeholders to 
dispose of their estates, and to seek em- 
plojnnent in the army and navy, in the 
professions of civil life, in commerce, or 
in the colonies. The effect of this on 
the Bi'itish constitution cannot but be 
most unfavorable. A few large estates 
grow larger; but the number of those 
who have no estates also increases ; and 
there may be danger, lest the inequality 
of property become so great, that those 
who possess it may be dispossessed by 
force; in other words, that the govern- 
ment may be overturned. 

A most interesting experiment of the 
effect of a subdivision of property on 
government is now making in France. 
It is imderstood, that the law regulat- 
ing the transmission of property in that 
country, now divides it, real and per- 
sonal, among all the children equally, 
both sons and daughters ; and that there 
is, also, a very gi-eat restraint on the 
power of making dispositions of prop- 
erty by will. It has been supposed, that 
the effects of this might probably be, in 
time, to break up the soil into such small 
subdivisions, that the proprietors would 
be too poor to resist the encroachments 
of executive power. I think far other- 
wise. What is lost in individual wealth 
will be more than gained in numbers, in 
intelligence, and in a sympathy of senti- 
ment. If, indeed, only one or a few 
landholders were to resist the crown, 
like the barons of England, they must, 
of course, be gi-eat and powerful land- 
holdei'S, with multitudes of retainers, to 
j)romise success. But if the proprietors 
of a given extent of territory are sum- 
moned to resistance, there is no reason 
to believe that siich I'esistance would be 
less forcible, or less successful, because 
the number of such proprietors happened 
to be great. Each would perceive his 
own importance, and his own interest, 
and would feel that natural elevation of 
character which the consciousness of 
property inspires. A common senti- 
ment would unite all, and numbers 
would not only add strength, but excite 
enthusiasm. It is true, that France 
possesses a vast military force, under 
the direction of an hereditary executive 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



45 



government; and military power, it is 
possible, may overthrow any govern- 
ment. It is in vain, however, in this 
period of the world, to look for security 
against military power to the arm of the 
great landholders. That notion is de- 
rived from a state of things long since 
past; a state in which a feudal baron, 
with his retainers, might stand against 
the sovereign and his retainers, him- 
self but the greatest baron. But at 
present, what could the richest land- 
holder do, against one regiment of dis- 
ciplined troops? Other securities, there- 
fore, against the prevalence of military 
power must be provided. Happily for 
us, we are not so situated as that any 
purpose of national defence requires, 
ordinarily and constantly, such a mili- 
tary force as might seriously endanger 
our liberties. 

In respect, however, to the recent law 
of succession in France, to which I have 
alluded, I would, presumptuously per- 
haps, hazard a conjectm-e, that, if the 
government do not change the law, the 
law in half a century will change the gov- 
ernment; and that this change will be, 
not in favor of the power of the crown, 
as some Em-opean writers have supposed, 
but against it. Those writers only rea- 
son upon what they think correct general 
principles, in relation to this subject. 
They acknowledge a want of experience. 
Here we have had that experience ; and 
we know that a multitude of small pro- 
prietors, acting with intelligence, and 
that enthusiasm which a common cause 
inspires, constitute not only a formida- 
ble, but an invincible power. ^ 

The true principle of a free and popu- 
lar government would seem to be, so to 
construct it as to give to all, or at least 
to a veiy gi-eat majority, an interest in 
its preservation; to fomid it, as other 
things are founded, on men's interest. 
The stability of government demands 
that those who desire its continuance 
should be more powerful than those who 
desire its dissolution. This power, of 
course, is not always to be measured by 
mere numbers. Education, wealth, tal- 

1 See note B, at the end of the Discourse. 



ents, are all parts and elements of the 
general aggregate of power; but num- 
bers, nevertheless, constitute ordinarily 
the most important consideration, un- 
less, indeed, there be a military force in 
the hands of the few, by which they can 
control tlie many. In this country we 
have actually existing systems of gov- 
ernment, in the maintenance of which, 
it should seem, a gi-eat majority, both 
in numbers and in other means of power 
and influence, must see their interest. 
But this state of things is not brought 
about solely by written political consti- 
tutions, or the mere manner of organiz- 
ing the government; but also by the 
laws which regulate the descent and 
transmission of property. The freest 
government, if it could exist, would 
not be long acceptable, if the tendency 
of the laws were to create a rapid accu- 
mulation of property in few hands, and 
to render the great mass of the popula- 
tion dependent and j)enniless. In such 
a case, the popular power would be likely 
to break in upon the rights of property, 
or else the influence of projierty to 
limit and control the exercise of popular 
power. Universal suffrage, for example, 
could not long exist in a community 
whei-e there was great inequality of 
property. The holders of estates would 
be obliged, in such case, in some way to 
restrain the right of suffrage, or else 
such right of suffrage would, before 
long, divide the property. In the na- 
ture of things, those who have not prop- 
erty, and see their neighbors possess 
much more than they think them to 
need, cannot be favorable to laws nuvde 
for the protection of property. Wlien 
this class becomes numerous, it grows 
clamorous. It looks on property as its 
prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, 
at all times, for violence and revolution. 
It would soem, then, to be the part of 
political wisdom to found government 
on property; and to establish such di.s- 
tribution of property, by the laws which 
regulate its transmission and alienation, 
as to interest tlie great niaj(jrity of soci- 
ety in the support of the government. 
This is, I imagine, the true theory and 
the actual practice of our republican 



46 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



institutions. "With property divided as 
we have it, no other government than 
that of a republic could be maintained, 
even were we foolish enough to desire 
it. There is reason, therefore, to ex- 
pect a long continuance of our system. 
Party and passion, doubtless, may pre- 
vail at times, and much temporary mis- 
ciiief be done. Even modes and forms 
may be changed, and perhaps for the 
worse. But a great revolution in re- 
gard to property must take place, before 
our governments can be moved from 
their republican basis, unless they be 
violently struck off by military power. 
The people possess the pi-operty, more 
emphatically than it could ever be said 
of the people of any other countiy, and 
they can have no interest to overturn a 
government which protects that property 
by equal laws. 

Let it not be supposed, that this state 
of things possesses too strong tendencies 
towards the production of a dead and 
uninteresting level in society. Such 
tendencies are sufficiently counteracted 
by the infinite diversities in the charac- 
ters and fortunes of individuals. Tal- 
ent, activity, industry, and enter2:)rise 
tend at all times to pi-oduce inequality 
and distinction; and there is room still 
for the accumulation of wealth, with its 
great advantages, to all reasonable and 
useful extent. It has been often urged 
against the state of society in America, 
that it furnishes no class of men of for- 
tune and leisure. This may be partly 
true, but it is not entirely so, and the 
evil, if it be one, would affect rather the 
progress of taste and literature, than 
the general prosperity of the people. 
But the promotion of taste and litera- 
ture cannot be primary objects of politi- 
cal institutions; and if they could, it 
miglit be doubted whether, in the long 
course of things, as much is not gained 
by a wide diffusion of general knowl- 
edge, as is lost by diminishing the num- 
ber of those who are ('nal)led by fortune 
and leisure to devote tliemselves exclu- 
sively to .scientific and literary pursuits. 
However this may be, it is to be con- 
sidered that it is the .spirit of our .system 
to be equal and general, and if there be 



particular disadvantages incident to this, 
tliey are far more than counterbalanced 
by the benefits which weigh against 
them. The important concerns of soci- 
ety are generally conducted, in all coun- 
tries, by the men of business and practi- 
cal ability ; and even in matters of taste 
and literature, the advantages of mere 
leisure are liable to be overrated. If 
there exist adecpiate means of education 
and a love of letters be excited, that 
love will find its way to the object of its 
desire, through the crowd and pressure 
of the most busy society. 

Connected with this division of prop- 
erty, and the consequent participation 
of the great mass of people in its pos- 
session and enjoyments, is the system of 
representation, which is admirably ac- 
commodated to our condition, better 
understood among us, and more famil- 
iarly and extensively practised, in the 
higher and in the lower departments of 
government, than it has been by any 
other people. Great facility has been< 
given to this in New England by the 
early division of the country into town- 
ships or small districts, in which all 
concerns of local police are regulated, 
and in which representatives to the leg- 
islature are elected. Nothing can ex- 
ceed the utility of these little bodies. 
They are so many councils or parlia- 
ments, in which common interests are 
discussed, and useful knowledge ac- 
quired and communicated. 

The division of governments into de- 
partments, and the division, again, of 
the legislative department into two 
chambers, are essential provisions in our 
system. This last, although not new in 
itself, yet seems to be new in its appli- 
cation to governments wholly popular. 
The Grecian republics, it is plain, knew 
nothing of it; and in Rome, the check 
and balance of legislative power, such 
as it was, lay between the people and 
the senate. Indeed, few things are 
more difficult than to ascertain accu- 
rately the true nature and construction 
of the Roman commonwealth. The 
relative power of the senate and the peo- 
ple, of the consuls and the tribunes, 
appears not to have been at aU times 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



47 



the same, nor at any time accurately 
defined or strictly observed. Cicero, 
indeed, describes to us an admirable 
arrangement of political power, and a 
balance of the constitution, in that 
beautiful passage, in which he compares 
the democracies of Greece with the 
Roman commonwealth. "O morem 
preclarum, disciplinaraque, quam a 
tnajoribus accepimus, si quidem tenere- 
mus! sed nescio quo pacto jam de niani- 
bus elabitur. NuUam enim illi nostri 
sapientissimi et sanctissimi viri vim 
concionis esse voluerunt, quae scisseret 
plebs, aut quse populus juberet; sum- 
mota concione, distributis partibus, 
tributim et centuriatim descriptis ordini- 
bus, classibus, ictatibus, auditis auctori- 
bus, re multos dies promulgata et cognita, 
juberi vetarique voluerunt. Grjecorum 
autem totse respublic?e sedeutis concio- 
nis temeritate administrantur." ^ 

But at what time this wise system 
existed in this perfection at Rome, no 
proofs remain to show. Her constitu- 
tion, originally framed for a monarchy, 
never seemed to be adjusted in its sev- 
eral parts after the expulsion of the 
kings. Liberty there was, but it was a 
disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured 
liberty. The patrician and plebeian 
orders, instead of being matched and 
joined, each in its just jslace and propor- 
tion, to sustain the fabric of the state, 
were ratlier like hostile powers, in per- 
petual conflict. With us, an attempt 
has been made, and so far not without 
success, to divide representation into 
chambers, and, by difference of age, 
character, qualification, or mode of elec- 
tion, to establish salutary checks, in 
governments altogether elective. 

Having detained you so long with 
these observations, I must yet advert to 
another most interesting topic, — the 
Free Schools. In this particular, New 
England may be allowed to claim, I 
think, a merit of a peculiar character. 
She early adopted, and has constantly 
maintained the principle, that it is the 
undoubted right and the bouudeu duty 



\ 



1 Oratio pro Flacco, § 7. 



of government to provide for the in- 
struction of all youth. That which is 
elsewhere left to chance or to charity, 
we secure by law."'^ For the purpose of 
public instruction, we hold every man 
subject to taxation in proix)rtion to his 
property, and we look not to the ques- 
tion, whether he himself have, or have 
not, children to be benefited by the edu- 
cation for which he pays. AVe regard 
it as a wise and liberal system of police, 
by which property, and life, and the 
peace of society are secured. We seek 
to prevent in some measure the exten- 
sion of the penal code, by inspiring a 
salutary and conservative principle of 
virtue and of knowledge in an early age. 
We strive to excite a feeling of respect- 
ability, and a sense of character, by 
enlarging the capacity and increasing 
the sphere of intellectual enjoyment. 
By general instruction, we seek, as far 
as possible, to purify the whole moral 
atmosphere; to keep good sentiments 
uppermost, and to turn the strong cur- 
rent of feeling and opinion, as well as 
the censui'es of the law and the denun- 
ciations of religion, against immorality 
and crime., We hope for a security 
beyond the law, and above the law, in 
the prevalence of an enlightened and 
well-principled moral sentiment. We 
hope to continue and prolong the time, 
when, in the villages and farm-houses 
of New England, there may be undis- 
turbed sleep within unbarred doors. 
And knowing that our government I'ests 
directly on the public will, in order that 
we may preserve it we endeavor to give 
a safe and proper direction to that pub- 
lic will. We do not, indeed, expect all 
men to be philosophers or statesmen; 

2 Tlie first free school established by law iu 
the riymoulh Colony was in 1070-72. One of 
the early teachers in Hoston tauj^ht sciiool more 
than sevcntij years. See Cotton J[atiRT'.s " Fu- 
neral Sermon upon A[r. Ezci<icl Chccvcr, the 
ancient and honorable Master of the Free School 
in Boston."' 

For tlie impression made upon the mind of 
an intelligent foreigner by the general attention 
to popular education, as characteristic of the 
American polity, see Mackay's Western World, 
Vol. in. p. 2i5 et seq. Also, Edinburjjh Re- 
view, No. 186. 



48 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



but we coiifidently trust, and our ex- 
pectation of the duration of our system 
of govenuneut rests on that trust, that, 
by the diffusion of general knowledge 
and good and virtuous sentiments, the 
political fabric may be secure, as well 
against open violence and overthrow, as 
against the slow, but sure, undermining 
of licentiousness. 

We know that, at the present time, 
an attempt is making in the English 
Parliament to provide by law for the 
education of the poor, and that a gen- 
tleman of distinguished character (Mr. 
Brougham) has taken the lead in pre- 
senting a plan to government for carry- 
ing that purjjose into effect. And yet, 
although the representatives of the three 
kingdoms listened to him with astonish- 
ment as well as delight, we hear no 
principles with which we ourselves have 
not been familiar from youth; we see 
nothing in the plan but an approach 
towards that system which has been es- 
tablished in New England for more 
than a century and a half. It is said 
that in England not more than one child 
in fifteen j^ossesses the means of being 
taught to read and write; in Wales, one 
in twenty; in France, until lately, when 
some improvement was made, not more 
than one in thirty-five. Now, it is hardly 
too strong to say, that in New England 
ecery ch ild possesses such means. It would 
be difficult to find an instance to the con- 
trary, unless where it should be owing 
to the negligence of the parent; and, in 
truth, the means are actually used and 
enjoyed by nearly eveiy one. A youth 
of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot 
both read and write, is very seldom to 
be found. Who can make this compari- 
son, or contemplate this spectacle, with- 
out delight and a feeling of just jjride? 
Does any history show property more 
beneficently applied? Did any govern- 
ment ever subject the property of those 
who have estates to a burden, for a pur- 
pose more favorable to the poor, or more 
useful to the whole community ? 

A conviction of the importance of pub- 
lic instruction was one of tlie earliest 
sentiments of our ancestors. No law- 
giver of ancient or modern times has ex- 



pressed more just opinions, or adopted 
wiser measures, than the early records 
of the Colony of Plymouth show to have 
prevailed here. Assembled on this very 
spot, a hundred and fifty-three years ago, 
the legislature of this Colony declared, 
" Forasmuch as the maintenance of good 
literature doth much tend to the advance- 
ment of the weal and flourishing state of 
societies and republics, this Court doth 
therefore order, that in whatever town- 
ship in this government, consisting of 
fifty families or upwards, any meet man 
shall be obtained to teach a grammar 
school, such township shall allow at least 
twelve pounds, to be raised by rate on 
all the inhabitants." 

Having provided that all youth should 
be instructed in the elements of learning 
by the institution of free schools, our 
ancestors had yet another duty to per- 
form. Men were to be educated for the 
professions and the public. For this 
purpose they founded the University, 
and with incredible zeal and persever- 
ance they cherished and supported it, 
through all trials and discouragements.^ 
On the subject of the University, it is 
not possible for a son of New England 
to think without pleasure, or to speak 
without emotion. Nothing confers more 
honor on the State where it is estab- 
lished, or more utility on the country at 
large. A respectable university is an 
establishment which must be the work 
of time. If pecuniary means were not 
wanting, no new institution could pos- 
sess character and respectability at once. 
We owe deep obligation to our ances- 
tors, who began, almost on the moment 
of their arrival, the work of building 
up this institution. 

Although established in a different 
government, the Colony of Plymouth 
manifested warm friendship for Har- 
vard College. At an early period, its 
government took measures to promote a 

1 By a law of the Colony of Massachusetts 
Bay, passed as early as 16i7, it was ordered, 
that, " when any town shall increase to the 
number of one hundred families or household- 
ers, they shall set up a grammar school, the 
master thereof being able to instruct youth so 
far as they may be titled for the University." 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



49 



general subscription throuE^hout all the 
towns in this Colony, in aid of its small 
funds. Other colleges were subsequently 
founded and endowed, in other places, 
as the ability of the people allowed; and 
we may flatter ourselves, that the means 
of education at present enjoyed in Xew 
England are not only adequate to the 
diffusion of the elements of knowledge 
among all classes, but sufficient also for 
respectable attainments in literature and 
the sciences. 

Lastly, our ancestors established their 
system of government on morality and 
religions sentiment. Moral habits, they 
believed, cannot safely be trusted on any 
other foundation than religious princi- 
ple, nor any government be secure which 
is not supported by moral habits. Liv- 
ing under the heavenly liglit of revela- 
tion, they hoped to find all the social 
dispositions, all the duties which men 
owe to each other and to society, en- 
forced and performed. Whatever makes 
men good Christians, makes them good 
citizens. Our fathers came here to en- 
joy their religion free and unmolested; 
and, at the end of two centuries, there 
is nothing* upon which we can pronounce 
more confidently, nothing of which we 
can express a more deep and earnest con- 
viction, than of the inestimable import- 
ance of that religion to man, both in re- 
gard to this life and that which is to come. 

If the blessings of our political and 
social condition have not been too highly 
estimated, we cannot well overrate the 
responsibility and duty which tliey im- 
pose upon us. We hold these institu- 
tions of government, religion, and learn- 
ing, to be transmitted, as well as enjoyed. 
We are in the line of conveyance, through 
wliich whatever has been obtained by the 
spirit and effoits of our ancestors is to be 
communicated to our children. 

We are bound to maintain public lib- 
1 erty, and, by the example of our own 
eystems, to convince the world that or- 
der and law, religion and morality, the 
rights of conscience, the rights of per- 
sons, and the rights of property, may all 
be preserved and secured, in the most 
perfect manner, by a government en- 



tirely and purely elective. If we fail in 
this, our disaster will be signal, and will 
furnish an argument, stronger than has 
yet been found, in support of those opin- 
ions which maintain that government 
can rest safely on nothing but power 
and coercion. As far as experience may 
show errors in our establishments, we 
are bound to correct them; and if any 
practices exist contrary to the principles 
of justice and humanity within the reach 
of our laws or our influence, we are in- 
excusable if we do not exert ourselves to 
restrain and abolish them. 

I deem it my duty on this occasion to 
sugge.st, that the land is not yet wholly 
free from the contamination of a traffic, 
at which every feeling of humanity must 
for ever revolt, — I mean the African 
slave-trade.^ Xeither public sentiment, 
nor the law, has hitherto been able en- 
tirely to put an end to this odious and 
abominable trade. At the moment when 
God in his mercy has blessed the Chris- 
tian world with a universal peace, there 
is reason to fear, that, to the disgrace of 
the Christian name and character, new 
efforts are making for the extension of 
this trade by subjects and citizens of 
Christian states, in whose hearts there 
dwell no sentiments of humanity or of 
justice, and over whom neitlier the fear 
of God nor the fear of man exercises a 
control. In the sight of our law, the 
African slave-trader is a pirate and a 
felon; and in the sight of Heaven, an 
offender far beyond the ordinary deptli 
of human guilt. There is no brighter 
page of our history, than that which 
records the measures which have been 
adopted by the government at an early 
day, and at different times since, for the 
suppression of this traffic; and I would 
call on all the true sous of New England 
to co-operate with tlie laws of man, and 
the justice of Heaven. If there be, with- 
in the extent of our knowledge or influ- 
ence, any participation in this traffic, let 
us pledge ourselves here, upon the rock 
of Plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. 

1 In reference to the opposition of the Colo- 
nies to the slave-trade, see a representation of 
the Board of Trade to the House of Lords, 2.Jd 
January, 1733-4. 



50 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



It is not fit that the land of the Pilgrims 
should bear the shame longer. I hear 
the sound of the hammer, I see the 
smoke of the furnaces where manacles 
and fetters are still forged for human 
limbs. I see the visages of those who 
by stealth and at midnight labor in this 
work of hell, foul and dark, as may be- 
come the artificers of such instruments 
of misery and torture. Let that spot be 
purified, or let it cease to be of New 
England. Let it be purified, or J': it be 
set aside from the Christian woriii ; let 
it be put out of the circle of human sym- 
pathies and human regards, and let civil- 
ized man henceforth have no communion 
with it. 

I would invoke those who fill the seats 
of justice, and all who minister at her 
altar, that they execute the wholesome 
and necessary severity of the law. I in- 
voke the ministers of our religion, that 
they proclaim its denunciation of these 
crimes, and add its solemn sanctions to 
the authority of human laws. If the 
pulpit be silent whenever or wherever 
there may be a sinner bloody with this 
guilt within the hearing of its voice, 
the pulpit js false to it ' trust. I call on 
the fair m rchant, who has reaped his 
harvest upon the seas, that he assist 
in scourging from those seas the worst 
pirates that ever infested them. That 
ocean, which seems to wave with a gen- 
tle magnificence to waft the burden of 
an honest commerce, and to roll along 
its treasures with a conscious pride, — 
that ocean, which hardy industry I'e- 
gards, even w'hen the winds have ruffled 
its surface, as a field of grateful toil, — 
what is it to the victim of this oppres- 
sion, when he is brought to its shores, 
and looks forth upon it, for the first 
time, loaded with chains, and bleeding 
with strip s? What is it to him but a 
wide-spread prospect of suffering, an- 
guish, and death? Nor do the skies 
smile longer, nor is the air longer fra- 
grant to him. The sun is cast down 
from heaven. An inhuman and accursed 
traffic has cut him off in his manhood, 
or in his youth, from every enjoyment 
belonging to his being, and every bless- 
ing which his Creator intended for him. 



The Christian communities send forth 
their emissaries of religion and letters, 
who stop, here and there, along the coast 
of the vast continent of Af i-ica', and with 
painful and tedious efforts make some 
ahnost imperceptible progress in the 
communication of knowledge, and in 
the general improvement of the natives 
who are immediately about them. Not 
thus slow and imperceptible is the trans- 
mission of the vices and bad passions 
which the subjects of Christian states 
carry to the land. The slave-trade hav- 
ing touched the coast, its influence and 
its evils spread, like a pestilence, over 
the whole continent, making savage 
wars more savage and more frequent, 
and adding new and fierce passions to 
the contests of barbarians. 

I i:)ursue this topic no further, except 
again to say, that all Christendom, being 
now blessed with peace, is bound by 
every thing w'hich belongs to its char- 
acter, and to the character of the pres- 
ent age, to put a stop to this inhuman 
and disgraceful trafiic. 

We are bound, not only to maintain 
the general principles of public liberty, 
but to support also those existing forms 
of government which have so well se- 
cured its enjoyment, and so highly pro- 
moted the public prosperity. It is now 
more than thirty years that these States 
have been united under the Federal Con- 
stitution, and whatever fortune may 
await them hereafter, it is impossible 
that this period of their history should 
not be regarded as distinguished by 
signal prosperity and success. They 
must be sanguine indeed, who can hope 
for benefit from change. Whatever 
division of the public judgment may 
have existed in relation to particular 
measures of the government, all must 
agi-ee, one should think, in the opinion, 
that in its general course it has been 
eminently productive of public happi- 
ness. Its most ardent friends could not 
well have hoped from it more than it 
has accomplished; and those who dis- 
believed or doubted ought to feel less 
concern about predictions which the 
event has not verified, than pleasure in 
the good which has been obtained. 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



51 



Whoever shall hereafter -write this part 
of our history, although he may see oc- 
casional erroi's or defects, will be able 
to record no great failure in the ends 
and objects of government. Still less 
will he be able to record any series of 
lawless and despotic acts, or any success- 
ful usurpation. His page will contain 
no exhibition of provinces depopulated, 
of civil authority habitually trampled 
down by military power, or of a com- 
munity crushed by the burden of taxa- 
tion. He will speak, rather, of public 
liberty protected, and public hajipiness 
advanced; of increased revenue, and 
population augmented beyond all exam- 
]>le; of the growth of commerce, nuvnu- 
factures, and the arts; and of that happy 
condition, in which the restraint and co- 
ercion of government are almost invisible 
and imperceptible, and its influence felt 
only in the benefits which it confers. 
AV^e can entertain no better wish for our 
country, than that this government may 
be preserved; nor have a clearer duty 
than to maintain and support it in the 
full exercise of all its just constitutional 
powers. 

The cause of science and literature 
also imposes upon us an important and 
delicate trust. The wealth and popu- 
lation of the country are now so far 
advanced, as to authorize the exepctation 
of a coiTect literature and a well formed 
taste, as well as respectable progress in 
the abstruse sciences. The country has 
risen from a state of colonial subjection ; 
it has established an independent gov- 
ernment, and is now in the undisturbed 
enjoyment of peace and political security. 
The elements of knowledge are univer- 
sally diffused, and the reading portion 
of the community is large. Let us hope 
that the present may be an auspicious 
era of literature. If, almost on the day 
of their landing, our ancestors founded 
schools and endowed colleges, what obli- 
gations do not rest upon us, living under 
circumstances so much more favorable 
both for providing and for using the 
means of education? Literature be- 
comes free institutions. It is the grace- 
ful ornament of civil liberty, and a 
happy restraint on the asperities which 



political controversies sometimes occa^ 
sion. Just taste is not only an embel- 
lishment of society, but it rises almost 
to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses 
positive good throughout the whole ex- 
tent of its influence. There is a con- 
nection between right feeling and right 
principles, and truth in taste is allied 
with truth in morality. AVith nothing 
in our past history to discourage us, and 
with something in our present condition 
and p :)spects to animate us, let us hope, 
that is it is our .fortune to live in an 
age when we may behold a wonderful 
advancement of the country in all its 
other great interests, we may see also 
equal progress and success attend the 
cause of letters. 

Finally, let us not forget the religious 
character of our origin. Our fathers 
were brought hither by their high vener- 
ation for the Christian religion. They 
journeyed by its light, and labored in its 
hope. They sought to incorporate its 
principles with the elements of their 
society, and to diffuse its infl>ience 
through all their institutions, civil, po- 
litical, or literary. Let us cherish these 
sentiments, ant' extend this influence 
still more widely; in the fr^'' conviction, 
that that is the happiest society which 
partakes in the highest degree of the 
mild and peaceful spirit of ChristianitJ^ 

The hours of this day are rapidly 
flying, and this occasion will soon be 
passed. Neither we nor our children 
can expect to behold its return. They 
are in the distant regions of futurity, 
they exist only in the all-creating power 
of God, who shall stand here a hundred 
years hence, to trace, through us, their 
descent from the Pilgrims, and to sur- 
vey, as we have now surveyed, the prog- 
ress of their country, during the lapse 
of a century. We would anticipate their 
concurrence with us in our s ntiTueuts o'' 
deep regard for our common ancestors. 
We would anticipate and partake tlie 
pleasure with which thoy will then re- 
count the steps of New England's ad- 
vancement. On the morning of tliat 
day, although it will not disturb us in 
our repose, the voice of acclamation 
and gratitude, commencing on the Hock 



52 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



of Plymouth, shall be transmitted 
through millions of the sons of the 
Piltrrims, till it lose itseK in the mur- 
murs of the Pacific seas. . 

AVe would leave for the consideration 
of those who shall then occupy our 
places, some proof that we hold the 
blessings transmitted from our fathers 
in just estimation; some proof of our 
attachment to the cause of good govern- 
ment, and of civil and religious liberty; 
some proof of a sincere and ardent de- 
sire to promote every thing which may 
enlarge the understandings and improve 
the hearts of men. And when, from 
the long distance of a hundred years, 
they shall look back upon us, they shall 
know, at least, that we possessed affec- 
tions, which, running backward and 
warming with gratitude for what our 
ancestors have done for our happiness, 
run forward also to our posterity, and 
meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet 
they have arrived on the shore of being. 



Advance, then, ye future generations! 
We would hail you, as you rise in your 
long succession, to fill the places which 
we now fill, and to taste the blessings of 
existence where we are passing, and soon 
shall have passed, our own human dura- 
tion. "We bid you welcome to this 
pleasant land of the fathers. We bid 
you welcome to the healthful skies and 
the verdant fields of New England. We 
greet your accession to the great in- 
heritance which we have enjoyed. We 
welcome you to the blessings of good 
government and religious liberty. We 
welcome you to the treasures of science 
and the delights of learning. We wel- 
come you to the transcendent sweets of 
domestic life, to the happiness of kin- 
dred, and parents, and children. We 
welcome you to the immeasurable bless- 
ings of rational existence, the immortal 
hope of Christianity, and the light of 
everlasting truth! 



NOTES. 



Note A. — Page 27. 

The allusion in the Discourse is to the 
large liistorical painting of the Lanrling 
of the rilgrinis at I'lymouth, executed by 
Ilcnry Sargvnt, Esq., of Boston, and, with 
great libt-raMty, presented by liitn to the 
Pilgrim Society. It appeared in their hall 
(of which it forms the ('hicf ornament) for 
tlie first time at the celebration of 1824. It 
ri'j)resents the principal personages of the 
comi)any at the moment of landing, with 
thi' Indian Samoset, who approaches them 
with a friendly welcome. A very competent 
judge, lumsi'if a distinguished artist, the 
latf vencralik' Colonel Trumbull, has pro- 
nounced that this i)ainting has great merit. 
All interesting account of it will be found 
in Dr. Thacher's History of Plymouth, pp. 
240 and 207. 

An historical painting, by Kobcrt N. Weir, 
Esq., of the largest size, representing the 
embarkation of the I'llgrims from Delft- 
Ilaven, in Holland, and executed by order 
of Congress, tills one of the jianels of the 
Kotunda of the Cai)itol at Washington. Tin- 
moment chosen by the artist for the action 
of the picture is that in which the venerable 



pastor Robinson, with tears, and benedic- 
tions, and prayers to Heaven, dismisses the 
beloved members of his little flock to the 
perils and the hopes of their great enter- 
prise. The characters of the personages 
introduced are indicated with discrimina- 
tion and power, and the accessories of the 
work marked with much taste and skill. It 
is a painting of distinguished historical in- 
terest and of great artistic merit. 

The " Landing of the Pilgrims " has also 
been made the subject of a very interesting 
painting by Mr. Flagg, intended to repre- 
sent the deep religious feeling which so 
strikingly characterized the first settlers of 
New England. With this object in view, 
the central figure is that of Elder Brewster. 
It is a picture of cabinet size, and is in pos- 
session of a gentleman of New Haven, de- 
scended from Elder Brewster, and of that 
name. 

Note B. — Page 45. 

As the opinion of contemporaneous think- 
ers on this important subject cannot fail 
to interest the general reader, it is deemed 
proper to insert here the following extract 



FIKST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



53 



from a letter, written in 1849, to show how 
powerfully the truths uttered in 1820, in 
tile spirit of prophecy, as it were, impressed 
themselves upon certain minds, and iiow 
closely the verification of the prediction has 
been watched. 

"I do not remember any political prophecj', 

foundt'd on the spirit of a wide and far-rfai-liiiig- 
statesiiiaii>lii]), tliat lias Ijeen so remarl\al)ly ful- 
tiiled as ttie one made i)y Mr. M'ebster, in ins 
Discourse delivered at I'iyniouth in lS-20, on tiie 
effect wliicli tlie laws of succession to property 
in France, then in operation, would be lii<fly to 
produce on tlie forms and working of the French 
f^overnment. But to understand what he said, 
and what he foresaw. I must ex))lain a little 
what had been the course of legislation in France 
on which his predictions were founded. 

" Before the Revolution of l"8i», there had 
been a gi-eat accumulation of the landed prop- 
erty of the country, and, indeed, of all its prop- 
erty, — by means of laws of entail, mitjornts, 
and other legal contrivances, — in the hands of 
the privileged classes; chiefly in those of the no- 
bility and the clergy. The injury and injustice 
done by long continued legislation in this direc- 
tion were obviously great ; and it was not, per- 
haps, unnatural, that the opposite course to that 
whicli had brought on the mischief should be 
deemed the best one to cure it. At any rate, 
such was the course taken. 

" In 1791 a law was passed, preventing any 
man from having any interest beyond the period 
of his own life in any of his property, real, per- 
sonal, or mixed, and distributing all his posses- 
sions for him. immediately after Ids death, among 
his children, in equal shares, or if he left no chil- 
dren, then among his next of kin, on the same 
principle. This law, with a slight modifica- 
tion, made under the intiuence of Robespierre, 
was in force till 1800. But the period was en- 
tirely revolutionary, and probably (pate as much 
property changed hands from violence and the 
conseqiiences of violence, during the nine years 
it continued, as was transmitted by the laws 
that directly controlled its succession. 

" With the condng in of Bonaparte, however, 
there was established a new order of things, 
which has continued, with little modification, 
ever since, and has had its full share in working 
out the great changes in French society which 
we now witness. A few experiments were first 
made, and tlien the great Civil Code, often called 
the Code Nupolevn, was adopted. This was in 
1804. By this remarkable code, which is still 
in force, a man, if he has but one child, can give 
away by his last will, as he pk-ases, half of his 
property, — the law insuring the other half to 
the child; if he has two children, then he can 
so give away only one third, — the law reqidr- 
ing the other two thirds to be given e(pially to 
the two children; if three, then only one fourth 
UMiler sinular conditi'ins; but if he has a greater 
nunilur, it restricts the rights of the parent more 
anil more, and makes it more and more difHcult 
for him to distribute his property according to 
his own judgment ; the restrictions embarrassing 
him even in his lifetime. 

" The c(msequences of such laws are, from 
their nature, very slowly developed. When Mr. 
Webster spoke in 1820, the French code had 
been in operation sixteen years, and similar 
principles had prevailed for nearly a genera- 



tion. But still its wide results were not even 
suspected Those who had treated the subject 
at all supposed that the tendency was to break 
up the great estates in France, and make the 
larger nund)er of the holders of small estates 
more accessible to the influence of the govern- 
ment, then a limited monarchy, and so render 
it stronger and more desiiotic. 

"ilr. Webster held a different opinion. He 
said, ' In respect, however, to the recent law of 
succession in France, to which I have alluded, 
/ would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard a con- 
jecture, that, if the i/orerninetit do not change 
the law, the law in half a century will chanae 
the (fovemment ; ami that this change will be, 
not m fator of the power of the croirn, as some 
European writers have supposed, but against 
it. Those writers only reason upon what they 
think correct general principles, in relation to 
this subject. They acknowledge a want of 
experience. Here we have had that experi- 
ence; and we know that a multitude of small 
proprietors, acting with intelligence, and that 
enthusiasm which a common cause inspires, 
constitute not only a formidable, but an in- 
vincible power.' 

"In less than si.x years after Mr. Webster 
uttered this remarkable prediction, the king of 
France himself, at the ojiening of the Legislative 
Chambers, thus strangely echoed it: — 'Legis- 
lation ought to provide, by successive improve- 
ments, for all the wants of society. The pro- 
gressive partitioning of landed estates, essen- 
tially contrary to the spirit of a monarchical 
government, would enfeeble the guaranties 
which the charter has given to my throne and 
to my subjects. Measures will be proposed to 
you, gentlemen, to establish the consistency 
which ought to exist between the political law 
and the civil law, and to preserve the patri- 
mony of fandlies, without restricting the liberty 
of disposing of one's property. The preserva- 
tion ot families is connected with, and affords a 
guaranty to, political stability, wiiich is the first 
want ot' states, and which is especially that of 
France, after so many vicissitudes.' 

"Still, the resultsto which such subdivision 
and comminution of propertv tended were not 
foreseen even in France. The Revolution of 
1830 came, and revealed a part of them; for 
that revolution was made by the influence of 
men possessing very moderate estates, who be- 
lieved that the guaranties of a government like 
tliat of the elder branch of the Bourbons were 
not sufiicient for their safety. But when the 
revolution was made, and the younger branch 
of the Bourbons reigned instead of the elder, 
the laws for the descent of property continued 
to be the same, and the subdivision went on as 
if it were an admitted benelit to society. 

"In consequence of this, in 1844 it was found 
that there were in France at least five millions 
and a half of families, or about twenty-seven 
millions of souls, who were proprietary families, 
and that of these about four millions of families 
had each less than nine Fnglish acres to the 
familv on the average. Of course, a vast nia- 
joritvof these twcntv-scveii millions of persons, 
though they might be interested in some smajl 
portion of the soil, were really poor, and multi- 
tudes of thein were dependent. 

" Now, therefore, the results began to appear 
in a practical form. One third of all the rental 
of France was discovered to be absolutely mort- 
gaged, and another third was swallowed up by 



54 



FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 



other encumbrances, leavint,' but one third free 
for tlie use and benefit of its owners. In other 
words, a f,'reat proportion of the people of France 
were embarrassed and ])oor, and a gieat propor- 
tion of the remainder were fast liecomin;,' so. 

"Such a state of thin.i,'s produced, of course, 
a wide-spread social uneasiness. Part of this 
uneasiness was directed af,'ainst tiie existing 
government; another and more (brnn'dable por- 
tion was directed against all government, and 
against the very institution of property. The 
couvulsion of iSiS followed; France" is still 



unsettled; and Mr. Webster's prophecy seems 
still to be in the course of a portentous fulfil- 
ment." 

In the London Quarterly Review for 1846 
there is an interesting discussion on so much 
of the matter as relates to the subdivision 
of real estate for agricultural purposes in 
France, as far as it had then advanced, and 
from which many of the facts here alluded 
to are taken. 



DEFENCE OF JUDGE JAMES PRESCOTT. 



THE CLOSING APPRAL TO THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN MR. WEB- 
STER'S "ARGUMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES PRESCOrr," APRIL 

24th, 1821. 



]Mh. President, the case is closed! 
The fat^ of the respondent is in your 
liands. It is for you now to say, whether, 
from the law and the facts as they have 
appeared before you, you will proceed to 
disgrace and disfranchise him. If your 
duty calls on you to convict him, let jus- 
tice be done, and convict him; but, I 
adjure you, let it be a clear, undoubted 
case. Let it be so for his sake, for you 
are robbing him of that for which, with 
all your high pow;ers, you can yield him 
no compensation ; let it be so for your 
own sakes, for the responsibility of this 
day's judgment is one which you must 
carry with you through life. For my- 
self, I am willing here to relinquish the 
character of an advocate, and to express 
opinions by which I am prepared to be 
bound as a citizen and a man. And I 
say upon my honor and conscience, that 
I see not how, with the law and consti- 
tution for your guides, you can ]>ro- 
nounce the respondent guilty. I di'clare 
that I have seen no case of wilful and 
corrupt official misconduct, set forth ac- 
cording to the requisitions of the con- 
stitution, and proved according to the 
common rules of evidence. I see many 
things imprudent and ill-judged; many 
things tluit I could wish had been other- 
wise ; but corruption and crime I do not 
see. 

Sir, the prejudices of the day will 
soon be forgotten; the passions, if any 
there be, which have excited or favored 
this prosecution will subside ; but the con- 
sequence of the judgment you are about 
to render will outlive both them and 



you. The respondent is now brought, 
a single, unprotected individual, to this 
formidable bar of judgment, to stand 
against the power and autliority of the 
State. I know you can crush him, as 
he stands before you, and clothed as you 
are with the sovereignty of tlie State. 
You have the power " to change his 
countenance and to send him away." 
Nor do I remind you, that your judg- 
ment is to be rejudged by the connnu- 
nity; and, as you have summoned him 
for trial to this high tribunal, that you 
are soon to descend yourselves from these 
seats of justice, and stand before the 
higher tribunal of the world. I would 
not fail so nmch in resi)ect to this hon- 
orable court as to hint th;^t it could pro- 
nounce a sentence which the community 
will reverse. No, Sir, it is not the 
world's revision which I would call on 
you to regard; but that of your own 
consciences, when years have gone by 
and you shall look back on the sentence 
you are about to render. If you send 
away the respondent, condemned and 
sentenced, from your bar, you are yet 
to meet him in the world on which you 
cast him out. You will be called to be- 
hold him a disgrace to his f.amily, a 
sorrow and a shame to his children, a 
living fountain of grief and agony to 
himself. 

If you shall then be able to behold 
him only as an unjust judge, whom ven- 
geance has overtaken and justice has 
blasted, you will be able to look upon 
him, not without pity, but yet without 
remorse. But if, on the other hand, you 



56 



DEFENCE OF JUDGE JAMES PRESCOTT. 



shall see, whenever and -wherever you 
meet him, a victim of prejudice or of 
passion, a sacrifice to a transient excite- 
ment; if you shall see in him a man for 
whose condemnation any provision of 
the constitution has been violated or any 
principle of law broken down, then will 
he be able, humble and low as may be 
his condition, then will he be able to 
turn the current of compassion back- 
ward, and to look with pity on those 
who have been his judges. If you are 
about to visit this respondent with a 
judgment which shall blast his house; if 
the bosoms of the innocent and the ami- 
able are to be made to bleed under your 
infliction, I beseech you to be able to 
state clear and strong gi-ounds for your 
proceeding. Prejudice and excitement 
are transitory, and will pass away. Po- 
litical expediency, in matters of judica- 
ture, is a false and hollow principle, and 
will never satisfy the conscience of him 
who is fearful that he may have given a 
hasty judgment. I earnestly entreat 
you, for your own sakes, to possess your- 
selves of solid reasons, founded in truth 
and justice, for the judgment you pro- 
nounce, which you can carry with you 
till you go down into your graves ; rea- 
sons which it will require no argument 
to revive, no sophistry, no excitement, 
no regard to popular favor, to render sat- 
isfactory to your consciences; reasons 
which you can appeal to in every crisis 
of your lives, and which shall be able to 
assure you, in your own great extremity, 
that you have not judged a fellow-crea- 
ture without mercy. 

Sir, I have done with the case of this 
individual, and now leave it in your 
hands. But I w'ould yet once more ap- 
peal to you as public men ; as statesmen ; 
as men of enlightened minds, capable of 
a large view of things, and of foreseeing 



the remote consequences of important 
transactions; and, as such, I would most 
earnestly implore you to consider fully of 
the judgment you may pronounce. You 
are about to give a construction to con- 
stitutional provisions which may adhei-e 
to that instrument for ages, either for 
good or evil. J, may perhaps overrate 
the importance of this occasion to the 
public welfare ; but I confess it does ap- 
pear to me, that, if this body give its 
sanction to some of the principles which 
have been advanced on this occasion, 
then there is a power in the State above 
the constitution and the law ; a power 
essentially arbitrary and despotic, the 
exercise of which may be most danger- 
ous. If impeachment be not under the 
rule of the constitution and the laws, 
then may we tremble, not only for those 
who may be impeached, but for all 
others. If the full benefit of every con- 
stitutional provision be not extended to 
the respondent, his case becomes the 
case of all the people of the Common- 
wealth. The constitution is their con- 
stitution. They have made it for their 
own protection, and for his among the 
rest. They are not eager for his convic- 
tion. They desire not his ruin. If he 
be condemned, without having his of- 
fences set forth in the manner which 
they, by their constitution, have pre- 
scribed, and in the manner which they, 
by their laws, have ordained, then not 
only is he condemned unjustly, but the 
rights of the whole people are disre- 
garded. For the sake of the people 
themselves, therefore, I would resist all 
attempts to convict by straining the laws 
or getting over their prohibitions. I 
hold up before him the broad shield of 
the constitution ; if through that he be 
pierced and fall, he will be but one suf- 
ferer in a common catastrophe. 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
UNITED STATES, ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 1824. 



OF THE 



[ The rise and progfrcss of the revolution 
in Greece attracted great attention in the 
United States. Many obvious causes con- 
tributed to this effect, and their influence 
was seconded by the direct appeal niaile to 
the people of America, b}' the first political 
body organized in Greece after the breaking 
out of the revolution, viz. "The Messenian 
Senate of Cahiinata." A formal address 
was made bj' that body to the people of the 
United States, and forwarded by their com- 
mittee (of which the celebrated Koray was 
ciiairman), to a friend and corres|>ondent in 
this country. This address was translated 
and widt'ly circulated; but it was not to be 
expected that any great degree of confi- 
dence should be at once generally felt in a 
movement undertaken against such formi- 
dable odds. 

Tlie progress of events, however, in 1822 
and 182;>, was such as to create an impres- 
sion that the revolution in Greece iiad a sub- 
stantial foundation in the state of affairs, 
in tlie awakened spirit of that country, and 
in the condition of public opinion through- 
out Christendom. The interest felt in the 
struggle rapitily increased in the United 
States. Local committees were formed, 
aidmated appeals were made, and funds 
collected, with a view to the relief of the 
victims of the war. 

On the assendjling of Congress, in Decem- 
ber, 182:5, President Monroe made the revo- 
lutitm in Greece the subject of a paragraph 
in ids annual message, and on tlie 8tli of 
December Mr. Webster moved tlic follow- 
ing resolution in the House of Representa- 
tives : — 

" Resolved, That provision ought to be 
made, by law, for defraying the expense 
incident to the appointment of an Agent or 
Commissioner to (ireece, whenever the Pres- 
ident shall deem it expedient to make such 
appointment." 

These, it is believed, are the first fiflficial 
expressions favorable to the indejicndi'nce 
of Greece uttered by any of the govern- 
ments of Christendom, and no doubt con- 
tributed powerfully towards the creation of 
that feeling throughout the civilized world 



which eventually led to the battle of Nava- 
rino, and the liiieration of a portion of 
Greece from the Turkish yoke. 

The House of Representatives having, on 
the 19th of January, resolved itself into a 
committee of the whole, and this resolution 
being taken into consideration, Mr. Webster 
spoke to the following effect.] 

I AM afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, so 
far as my part in this discussion is con- 
cerned, those expectations which the 
public excitement existing on the sub- 
ject, and certain associations easily sug- 
gested by it, have conspired to raise, 
may be disappointed. An occasion 
which calls the attention to a spot so 
distinguished, so connected with inter- 
esting recollections, as Greece, may natu- 
rally create something of warmth and 
enthusiasm. In a grave, jwlitical dis- 
cussion, however, it is necessary that 
those feelings should be chastised. I 
shall endeavor properly to repress them, 
although it is impossible that they 
should be altogether extinguished. We 
must, indeed, fly beyond tlie civilized 
world; we must pass the dominion of law 
and the boundaries of knowledge; we 
must, more especially, withdraw our- 
selves from this place, aiul the scenes 
and objects which here surround us, — 
if we would separate ourselves entirely 
from the influence of all those memorials 
of herself which ancient Greece lias 
transmitted for the admiration and the 
benefit of mankind. This free form of 
government, this popular assembly, the 
common council held for the coinmoa 
good, — where have we contemplated its 
earliest models? This practice of free 
debate and public discussion, the contest 



58 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



of mind with inind, and that popular 
eloquence, which, if it Were now here, 
on a subject like this, would move the 
stones of the Capitol, — whose was the 
language in which all these were first 
exhibited? Even the edifice in which 
we assemble, these proportioned col- 
umns, this ornamented architecture, all 
remind us that Greece has existed, and 
that we, like the rest of mankind, are 
greatly her debtors.^ 

But I have not introduced this motion 
in the vain hope of discharging any 
thing: of this accumulated debt of centu- 
ries. I have not acted upon the expec- 
tation, that we who have inherited this 
obligation from our ancestors should 
now attempt to pay it to those who may 
seem to have inherited from their ances- 
tors a right to receive payment. My 
object is nearer and more immediate. I 
wish to take occasion of the struggle of 
an interesting and gallant people, in the 
cause of liberty and Christianity, to draw 
the attention of the House to the circum- 
stances which have accompanied that 
struggle, and to the principles which 
appear to have governed the conduct of 
the great states of Europe in regard to 
it; and to the effects and consequences 
of these principles upon the indepen- 
dence of nations, and especially upon 
the institutions of free governments. 
What I have to say of Greece, therefore, 
concerns the modern, not the ancient; 
the living, and not the dead. It regards 
her, not as she exists in history, trium- 
phant over time, and tyranny, and igno- 
rance; but as she now is, contending, 
against fearful odds, for being, and 
for the common privileges of human 
nature. 

As it is never difficult to recite com- 
monplace remarks and trite aphorisms, 
so it may be easy, I am aware, on this 
occasion, to remind me of the wisdom 
which dictates to men a care of their own 
aft'airs, and admonishes them, instead 
of searching for adventures abroad, to 
leave other men's concerns in their own 
liands. It may be easy to call this reso- 

1 The interior of the hall of the House of 
Kepresentatives is surrounded by a magnificent 
colonnade of the composite order. [1824.] 



lution Quixotic, the emanation of a cru- 
sading or propagandist spirit. All this, 
and more, may be readily said; but all 
this, and more, will not be allowed to 
fix a character upon this proceeding, 
until that is proved which it takes for 
granted. Let it first be shown, that in 
this question there is nothing which can 
aifect the interest, the character, or the 
duty of this country. Let it be proved, 
that we are not called upon, by either 
of these considerations, to express an 
opinion on the subject to which the 
resolution relates. Let this be proved, 
and then it will indeed be made out, 
that neither ought this resolution to pass, 
nor ought the subject of it to have been 
mentioned in the communication of the 
President to us. But, in my opinion, 
this cannot be shown. In my judgment, 
the subject is interesting to the people 
and the government of this country, and 
we are called upon, by considerations of 
great weight and moment, to express 
our opinions upon it. These considera- 
tions, I think, spring from a sense of 
our own duty, our character, and our own 
interest. I wish to treat the subject on 
such grounds, exclusively, as are truly 
American ; but then, in considering it 
as an American question, I cannot for- 
get the age in which we live, the pre- 
vailing spirit of the age, the interesting 
questions which agitate it, and our own 
peculiar relation in regard to these inter- 
esting questions. Let this be, then, and 
as far as I am concerned I hope it will 
be, purely an American discussion; but 
let it embrace, nevertheless, every thing 
that fairly concerns America. Let it 
comprehend, not merely her present ad- 
vantage, but her permanent interest, her 
elevated character as one of the free 
states of the world, and her duty towards 
those great principles which have hith- 
erto maintained the relative iiidepen- 
dence of nations, and which have, more 
especially, made her what she is. 

At the commencement of the session, 
the President, in the discharge of the 
high duties of his office, called our at- 
tention to the subject to which this res- 
olution refers. " A strong hope," says 
that communication, " has been long 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



59 



entertained, founded on tlie heroic strug- 
gle of the Greeks, that they would suc- 
ceed in their contest, and resume their 
equal station among the nations of the 
earth. It is believed that the whole 
civilized world takes a deep interest in 
their welfare. Although no power has 
declared in their favor, yet none, ac- 
cording to our information, has taken 
part against them. Their cause and 
their name have protected them from 
dangers which might ere this have over- 
whelmed any other people. The ordi- 
nary calculations of interest, and of 
acquisition with a view to aggrandize- 
ment, which mingle so mvich in the 
transactions of nations, seem to have 
had no effect in regard to them. From 
the facts which have come to our knowl- 
edge, there is good cause to believe that 
their enemy has lost for ever all domin- 
ion over them; that Greece will become 
again an independent nation." 

It has appeared to me that the House 
should adopt some resolution reciprocat- 
ing these sentiments, so far as it shall 
approve them. More than twenty years 
have elapsed since Congress first ceased 
to receive such a communication from 
the President as could properly be made 
the subject of a general answer. I do 
not mean to find fault with this relin- 
quishment of a former and an ancient 
practice. It may have been attended 
with inconveniences which justified its 
abolition. But, certainly, there was one 
advantage belonging to it; and that is, 
that it furnished a fit opportunity for 
the expression of the opinion of the 
Houses of Congress upon those topics 
in the executive communication which 
were not expected to be made the im- 
mediate subjects of direct legislation. 
Since, therefore, the President's mes- 
sage does not now receive a general an- 
swer, it has seemed to me to be proper 
that, in some mode, agreeable to our 
own usual form of proceeding, we should 
express our sentiments upon the impor- 
tant and interesting topics on which it 
treats. 

If the sentiments of the message in 
respect to Greece be proper, it is e(|ually 
proper tiiat this House should recipro- 



cate those sentiments. The present res- 
olution is designed to have that extent, 
and no more. If it pass, it will leave 
any future proceeding where it now is, 
in the discretion of the executive gov- 
ernment. It is but an expression, under 
those forms in which the House is ac- 
customed to act, of the satisfaction of 
the House with the general sentiments 
expressed in regard to this subject in the 
message, and of its readiness to defray 
the expense incident to any in(]iiiry for 
the purpose of further information, or 
anj' other agency which the President, 
in his discretion, shall see fit, in what- 
ever manner and at whatever time, to 
institute. The whole matter is still loft 
in his judgment, and this resolution can 
in no way restrain its unlimited exer- 
cise. 

I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid 
the responsibility of this measure, if it 
had, in my judgment, any tendency to 
change the policy of the country. With 
the general course of that policy I am 
quite satisfied. The nation is prosper- 
ous, peaceful, and happy; and I should 
very reluctantly put its peace, prosper- 
ity, or happiness at risk. It appears to 
me, however, that this resolution is 
strictly conformable to our general pol- 
icy, and not only consistent with our 
interests, but even demanded by a large 
and liberal view of those interests. 

It is certainly true that the just pol- 
icy of this country is, in the first place, 
a peaceful policy. No nation ever had 
less to expect from forcible aggrandize- 
ment. The mighty agents wiiich are 
working out our greatness are time, in- 
dustry, and the arts. Our augmenta- 
tion is by growth, not by acquisition; 
by internal development, not by exter- 
nal accession. No schemes can be sug- 
gested to us so nuignificent as the 
prospects which a sober contemplation 
of our own condition, unaided by proj- 
ects, uninfluenced by ambition, fairly 
spreads before us. A country of sucli 
vast extent, with such varieties of .soil 
and climate, with so much public spirit 
and private enterprise, with a popula- 
tion increasing so much beyond former 
example, with capacities of improve- 



60 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



ment not only unapplied or unex- 
hausted, but even, in a great measure, 
as yet unexplored, — so free in its insti- 
tutions, so mild in its laws, so secure in 
the title it confers on every man to his 
own acquisitions, — needs nothing but 
time and peace to carry it forward to 
almost any point of advancement. 

In the next place, I take it for granted 
that the policy of this country, spring- 
ing from the nature of our government 
and the spirit of all our institutions, is, 
so far as it respects the interesting ques- 
tions which agitate the present age, on 
the side of liberal and enlightened sen- 
timents. The age is extraordinai-y ; 
the spirit that actuates it is peculiar and 
marked; and our own relation to the 
times we live in, and to the questions 
which interest them, is equally marked 
and peculiar. We are placed, by our 
good fortune and the wisdom and valor 
of our ancestors, in a condition in which 
we can act no obscure part. Be it for 
honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever 
we do is sure to attract the observation 
of the world. As one of the free states 
among the nations, as a great and rap- 
idly rising republic, it would be impos- 
sible for us, if we were so disposed, to 
prevent our principles, our sentiments, 
and our example from producing some 
effect upon the opinions and hopes of 
society throughout the civilized world. 
It rests probably with ourselves to deter- 
mine whether the influence of these shall 
be salutary or pernicious. 

It cannot be denied that the great 
political question of this age is that 
between absolute and regulated govern- 
ments. The substance of the contro- 
versy is whether society shall have any 
])art in its own government. Whether 
the form of government shall be that of 
limited monarchy, with more or less 
mixture of hereditary power, or wholly 
elective or representative, may perhaps 

be considered as subordinate. The 

main controversy is between that abso- 
lute rule, which, while it promises to 
govern well, means, nevertheless, to 
govern without control, and that consti- 
tutional system which restrains sover- 
eign discretion, and asserts that society 



may claim as matter of right some effec- 
tive power in the establishment of the 
laws which are to regulate it. The 
spirit of the times sets with a most pow- 
erful current in favor of these last-men- 
tioned opinions. It is opposed, however, 
whenever and wherever it shows itself, 
by certain of the great potentates of Eu- 
rope; and it is ojiposed on grounds as 
ajaplicable in one civilized nation as in 
another, and which would justify such 
opposition in relation to the United 
States, as well as in relation to any other 
state or nation, if time and circumstan- 
ces should render such opposition expe- 
dient. 

What part it becomes this country to 
take on a question of this sort, so far as 
it is called upon to take any part, can- 
not be doubtful. Our side of this ques- 
tion is settled for us, even without our 
own volition. Our history, our situa- 
tion, our character, necessarily decide 
our position and our course, before we 
have even time to ask whether we have 
an option. Our place is on the side of 
free institutions. From the earliest set- 
tlement of these States, their inhabi- 
tants were accustomed, in a greater or 
less degree, to the enjoyment of the 
powers of self-government ; and for the 
last half-century they have sustained 
systems of government entirely repre- 
sentative, yielding to themselves the 
greatest possible prosperity, and not 
leaving them without distinction and 
respect among the nations of the earth. 
This system we are not likely to aban- 
don; and while we shall no farther rec- 
ommend its adoption to other nations, 
in whole or in part, than it may recom- 
mend itself by its visible influence on 
our own growth and prosperity, we are, 
nevertheless, interested to resist the es- 
tablishment of doctrines which deny the 
legality of its foundations. We stand 
as an equal among nations, claiming the 
full benefit of the established interna- 
tional law; and it is our duty to oppose, 
from the earliest to the latest moment, 
any innovations upon that code which 
shall bring into doubt or question our 
own equal and independent rights. 

I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



61 



those pretensions put forth li^ke allied 
sovereigns of Continental Europe, which 
seem to me calculated, if unresisted, to 
bring into disrepute the principles of 
our government, and, indeed, to be 
■wholly incompatible with any degree of 
national independence. I do not intro- 
duce these considerations for the sake 
of topics. I am not about to declaim 
against crowned heads, nor to quarrel 
with any country for preferring a form 
of govennnent dift'erent from our o\Yn. 
Tlie right of choice that we exercise for 
ourselves, I am quite willing to leave 
also to others. But it appears to me 
that the pretensions to which I have 
I alluded are wholly inconsistent with the 
independence of nations generally, with- 
out I'egard to the question whether their 
governments be absolute, monarchical 
and limited, or purely popular and rep- 
resentative. I have a most deep and 
thorough conviction, that a new era has 
arisen in the world, that new and dan- 
gerous combinations are taking place, 
promulgating doctrines and fraught 
with consequences wholly subversive in 
their tendency of the public law of na- 
tions and of the general liberties of man- 
kind. Whether this be so, or not, is 
the question which I now propose to ex- 
amine, upon such grounds of informa- 
tion as are afforded bj^ the common and 
public means of knowledge. 

Everybody knows that, since the final 
restoration of the Bourbons to the throne 
of France, the Continental powers have 
entered into sundry alliances, which have 
been made public, and have held sev- 
eral meetings or congresses, at which 
the principles of their political conduct 
have been declared. These things must 
necessarily have an effect upon the in- 
ternational law of the states of the world. 
If that effect be good, and according to 
the principles of that law, they deserve 
to be applauded. If, on the contrary, 
their effect and tendency be most dan- 
gerous, their principles wholly inadmis- 
sible, their pretensions such as would 
abolish every degree of national inde- 
pendence, then they are to be resisted. 

I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing 
your attention to the treaty concluded 



at Paris in September, 181.'), between 
Russia, Prussia, and Austria, commonly 
called the Holy Alliance. This singular 
alliance ajji)ears to have origiiuited with 
the Emperor of Russia; for we are in- 
formed that a draft of it was exhibited 
by him, personally, to a plenipoti-ntiary 
of one of the great powers of Europe, 
before it was presented to the other 
sovereigns who idtimately signed it.' 
This instrument professes nothing, cer- 
tainly, which is not extremely commend- 
able and praiseworthy. It promises only 
that the contracting parties, both in re- 
lation to other states, and in regard to 
their own subjects, will observe the rules 
of justice and Christianity. In confir- 
mation of these promi.ses, it makes the 
most solemn and devout religi(ius invo- 
cations. Now, although such an alliance 
is a novelty in European history, the 
world seems to have received this treaty, 
upon its first promulgation, with general 
charity. It was conmionly understood 
as little or nothing more than an ex- 
pression of thanks for the successful 
termination of the momentous contest 
in which those sovereigns had been en- 
gaged. It still seems somewhat unac- 
countable, however, that these good 
resolutions should require to be con- 
firmed by treaty. Who doubted that 
these august sovereigns would treat each 
other with justice, and rule their own 
subjects in mercy? And what necessity 
was there for a solenm stipulation by 
treaty, to insure the performance of that 
which is no more than the ordinary duty 
of every government? It would hardly 
be admitted by these sovereigns, that by 
this compact they consider themselves 
bound to introduce an entire change, or 
any change in the course of their own 
conduct. Nothing substantially new, 
certainly, can be supposed to have been 
intended. What principle, or what prac- 
tice, therefore, called for this .solemn 
declaration of the intention of the par- 
ties to observe the rules of religion and 
justice? 

1 See Lord Cnstlereagh's spocch in the House 
of Commons, l-'ebniary ."i, 181»i. l).l)ates in 
rarliaiuent, Vol. XX.XVI. p. ;!i'>r> ; wliere aUo 
the treaty may be found at length. 



i 



62 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



It is not a little remarkable, that a 
writer of reputation upon the Public 
Law, described, many years ago, not 
inaccurately, the character of this alli- 
ance. I allude to Puffendorf. "It 
seems useless," says he, "to frame any 
pacts or leagues, barely for the defence 
and support of universal peace; for by 
such a league nothing is superadded to 
the obligation of natural law, and no 
agreement is made for the performance 
of any thing which the parties were not 
previously bound to perform; nor is the 
original obligation rendered firmer or 
stronger by such aa addition. IMen of 
any tolerable culture and civilization 
might well be ashamed of entering into 
any such compact, the conditions of 
which imply only that the parties con- 
cerned shall not offend in any clear 
point of duty. Besides, we should be 
guilty of great irreverence towards God, 
should we suppose that his injunctions 
had not already laid a sufficient obliga- 
tion upon us to act justly, unless we 
ourselves voluntarily consented to the 
same engagement; as if our obligation 
to obey his will depended upon our own 
pleasure. 

"If one engage to serve another, he 
does not set it down expressly and par- 
ticularly among the terms and condi- 
tions of the bargain, that he will not 
betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor 
burn his house. For the same reason, 
that would be a dishonorable engage- 
ment in which men should bind them- 
selves to act properly and decently, and 
not break the peace." ^ 

Such were the sentiments of that emi- 
nent writer. How nearly he had antici- 
pated the case of the Holy Alliance will 
appear from the preamble to that alli- 
ance. After stating that the allied 
sovereigns had become persuaded, by 
the events of the last three years, that 
" their relations with each other ousrht 
to be regulated exclusively by the sub- 
lime truths taught by the eternal relig- 
ion of God the Saviour," they solemnly 
declare their fixed resolution " to adopt 
as the sole rule of their conduct, both 

1 Law of Nature and Nations, Book II. cap. 
2, § IL 



in the administration of their respective 
states, and in their political relations 
with every other government, the pre- 
cepts of that holy religion, namely, the 
precepts of justice, charity, and peace, 
which, far from being applicable to pri- 
vate life alone, ought, on the contrary, 
to have a direct influence upon the coun- 
sels of princes, and guide all their steps, 
as being the only means of consolidating 
human institutions, and remedying their 
imperfections." ^ 

This measure, however, appears prin- 
cipally important, as it was the first of 
a series, and was followed afterwards by 
others of a more marked and practical 
nature. These measures, taken to- 
gether, profess to establish two princi- 
ples, which the Allied Powers would 
introduce as a part of the law of the 
civilized world; and the establishment 
of which is to be enforced by a million 
and a half of bayonets. 

The first of these principles is, that 
all popular or constitutional rights are 
held no otherwise than as grants from 
the crown. Society, upon this princi- 
ple, has no rights of its own ; it takes 
good government, when it gets it, as a 
boon and a concession, but can demand 
nothing. It is to live by that favor which 
emanates from royal authority, and if 
it have the misfortune to lose that favor, 
there is nothing to protect it against any 
degree of injustice and oppression. It 
can rightfully make no endeavor for a 
change, by itself; its whole privilege is 
to receive the favors that may be dis- 
pensed by the sovereign power, and all 
its duty is described in the single word 
submission. This is the plain result of 
the principal Continental state papers ; 
indeed, it is nearly the identical text of 
some of them. 

The circular despatch addressed by 
the sovereigns assembled at Laybach, 
in the spring of 1821, to their ministers 
at foreign courts, alleges, "that useful 
and necessary changes in legislation and 
in the administration of states ought 
only to emanate from the free will and 
intelligent and well-weighed conviction 

2 Martens, Recueil des Trait^s, Tome XIII. 
p. G5G. 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



G3 



of those whom God has rendered re- 
sponsible for power. All that deviates 
from this line necessarily leads to dis- 
order, commotions, and evils far more 
insufferable than those which they pre- 
tend to remedy." ^ Now, Sir, this prin- 
ciple would carry Europe back again, at 
once, into the middle of the Dark Ages. 
It is the old doctrine of the Divine right 
of kings, advanced now by new advo- 
cates, and sustained by a formidable 
array of power. That the people hold 
their fundamental privileges as matter 
of concession or indulgence from the 
sovereign power, is a sentiment not easy 
to be diffused in this age, any farther 
than it is enforced by the direct opera- 
tion of military means. It is true, cer- 
tainly, that some six centm-ies ago the 
early founders of English liberty called 
the instrument which secured their rights 
a charter. It was, indeed, a concession ; 
they had obtained it sword in hand from 
the king; and in many other cases, what- 
ever was obtained, favorable to human 
rights, from the tyranny and despotism 
of the feudal sovereigns, was called by 
the names of privileges and liberties, as 
being matter of special favor. Though 
we retain this language at the present 
time, the principle itself belongs to ages 
that have long passed by us. The civil- 
ized world has done with " the enormous 
faith, of many made for one." Society 
asserts its own rights, and alleges them 
to be original, sacred, and unalienable. 
It is not satisfied with having kind mas- 
ters; it demands a participation in its 
own governtnent; and in states much 
advanced in civilization, it urges this 
demand with a constancy and an energy 
that cannot well nor long be resisted. 
There are, happily, enough of regulated 
governments in the world, and those 
among the most distinguished, to op- 
erate as constant examples, and to keep 
alive an unceasing panting in the bosoms 
of men for the enjoyment of similar free 
institutions. 

When the English Revolution of 1088 
took place, the English people did not 
content themselves with the example of 

1 Annual Register for 1821, p. 601. 



Runnymede; they did not build their 
hopes upon royal charters; they did not, 
like the autliors of the Laybach circular, 
suppose that all useful changes in con- 
stitutions and laws must proceed from 
those only whom God has rendered re- 
sponsible for power. They were some- 
what better instructed in the principles 
of civil liberty, or at least they were 
better lovers of those piinciples than 
the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of 
petitioning for charters, they declared 
their rights, and while they offered to 
the Prince of Orange tlie crown with one 
hand, they held in the other an enu- 
meration of those privileges which they 
did not profess to hold as favors, but 
which they demanded and insisted upon 
as their undoubted rights. 

I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chair- 
man, how totally hostile are these doc- 
trines of Laybach to the fundamental 
principles of our government. They are 
in direct contradiction; the pi'inciples 
of good and evil are hardly more oppo- 
site. If these principles of the sov- 
ereigns be true, we are but in a state of 
rebellion or of anarchy, and are only 
tolerated among civilized states because 
it has not yet been convenient to reduce 
us to the true standard. 

But the second, and, if possible, the 
still more objectionable principle, avowed 
in these papers, is the right of forcible 
interference in the affairs of other states. 
A right to control nations in their desire 
to change their own government, wher- 
ever it may be conjectured, or pretended, 
that such change might furnish an ex- 
ample to the subjects of other states, is 
plainly and distinctly asserted. The 
same Congress that made the declara- 
tion at Laybach had declared, before its 
removal from Troppau, " that the pow- 
ers have an undoubted right to take a 
hostile attitude in regard to those states 
in which the overthrow of the govern- 
ment may operate as an example." 

There cannot, as I think, be conceived 
a more flagrant violation of public law, 
or national independence, than is con- 
tained in this short declaration. 

No matter what be the character of 
the government resisted; no matter witii 



64 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



what weight the foot of the oppressor 
bears on the neck of the oppressed; if 
he struggle, or if he complain, he sets a 
dangerous example of resistance, — and 
from that moment he becomes an object 
of hostility to the most powerful poten- 
tates of the earth. I want words to ex- 
press my abhorrence of this abominable 
principle. I trust every enlightened man 
throughout the world will oppose it, 
and that, especially, those who, like our- 
selves, are fortunately out of the reach 
of the bayonets that enforce it, will pro- 
claim their detestation of it, in a tone 
both loud and decisive. The avowed 
object of such declarations is to preserve 
the peace of the world. But by what 
means is it proposed to preserve this 
peace ? Simply, by bringing the power 
of all governments to bear against all 
subjects. Here is to be established a sort 
of double, or treble, or quadruple, or, 
for aught I know, quintuple allegiance. 
An offence against one king is to be an 
offence against all kings, and the power 
of all is to be put forth for the punish- 
ment of the offender. A right to inter- 
fere in extreme cases, in the case of 
contiguous states, and where imminent 
danger is threatened to one by what is 
occurring in another, is not without pre- 
cedent in modern times, ixpon what has 
been called the law of vicinage; and 
when confined to extreme cases, and 
limited to a certain extent, it may 
perhaps be defended upon principles of 
necessity and self-defence. But to main- 
tain that sovereigns may go to war upon 
the subjects of another state to repress 
an example, is monstrous indeed. What 
is to be the limit to such a principle, or 
to the practice growing out of it ? What, 
in any case, but sovereign pleasure, is 
to decide whether the example be good 
or bad ? And what, under the operation 
of such a rule, may be thought of our 
example ? Why are we not as fair ob- 
jects for the operation of the new prin- 
ciple, as any of those who may attempt 
a reform of government on the other 
side of the Atlantic ? 

The ultimate effect of this alliance 
of sovereigns, for objects personal to 
themselves, or respecting only the per- 



manence of their own power, must be 
the destruction of all just feeling, and 
all natural sympathy, between those 
who exercise the power of govern- 
ment and those who are subject to it. 
The old channels of mutual regard and 
confidence are to be dried up, or cut 
off. Obedience can now be expected no 
longer than it is enforced. Instead of 
relying on the affections of the gov- 
erned, sovereigns are to rely on the 
affections and friendship of other sov- 
ereigns. There are, in short, no longer 
to be nations. Princes and people are 
no longer to unite for interests common 
to them both. There is to be an end of 
all patriotism, as a distinct national 
feeling. Society is to be divided hori- 
zontally; all sovereigns above, and all 
subjects below; the former coalescing 
for their own security, and for the more 
certain subjection of the undistinguished 
multitude beneath. This, Sir, is no 
picture drawn by imagination. I have 
hardly used language stronger than that 
in which the authors of this new system 
have commented on their own work. 
M. de Chateaubriand, in his speech in 
the French Chamber of Deputies, in 
February last, declared, that he had a 
conference with the Emperor of Russia 
at Verona, in which that august sover- 
eign uttered sentiments which appeared 
to him so precious, that he immediately 
hastened home, and wrote them down 
while yet fresh in his recollection. " The 
Emperor declared," said he, " that 
there can no longer be such a thing as 
an English, French, Russian, Prussian, 
or Austrian policy; there is henceforth 
but one policy, which, for the safety of 
all, should be adopted both by people 
and kings. It was for me first to show 
myself convinced of the principles upon 
which I founded the alliance; an occa- 
sion offered itself, — the rising in Greece. 
Nothing certainly could occur more for 
my interests, for the interests of my 
people, nothing more acceptable to my 
country, than a religious war in Turkey. 
But I have thought I perceived iii the 
troubles of the Morea the sign of revo- 
lution, and I have held back. Provi- 
dence has not put under my command 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



65 



eight hundred thousand soldiers to sat- 
isfy my ambition, but to protect relig- 
ion, morality, and justice, and to secure 
the prevalence of those principles of 
order on which human society rests. It 
may well be permitted, that kings may 
have public alliances to defend them- 
selves against secret enemies." 

These, Sir, are tlie words which the 
French minister thought so important 
that they deserved to be recorded ; audi, 
too, Sir, am of the same opinion. But 
if it be true that there is hereafter to be 
neither a llussian policy, nor a Prus- 
sian policy, nor an Austrian policy, nor 
a French policy, nor even, which yet I 
will not believe, an English policy, tiiere 
will be, I trust in God, an American 
policy. If the authority of all these 
governments be hereafter to be mixed 
and blended, and to flow in one aug- 
mented current of prerogative over the 
face of Europe, sweeping away all re- 
sistance in its course, it will yet remain 
for us to secure our own happiness by 
the preservation of our own principles; 
which I hope we shall liave the man- 
liness to express on all proper occasions, 
and the spirit to defend in every extrem- 
ity. The end and scope of this amal- 
gamated policy are neither more nor 
less than this: to interfere, by force, for 
any government against any people who 
may resist it. Be the state of the people 
what it may, they shall not rise; be the 
government what it will, it shall not be 
opposed. 

The practical commentary has corre- 
sponded with the plain language of the 
text. Look at Spain, and at Greece. 
If men may not resist the Spanish In- 
quisition, and the Turkish cimeter, what 
is there to which humanity must not 
submit? Stronger cases can never arise. 
Is it not proper for us, at all times, is it 
not our duty, at this time, to come forth, 
and deny, and condemn, these monstrous 
principles'? Where, but here, and in one 
other place, are they likely to be resisted? 
They are advanced with equal coolness 
and boldness; and they are supported 
by immense power. The timid will 
shiink and give way, and many of the 
brave may be compelled to yield to force. 



Human liberty may yet, perhaps, be 
obliged to repose its principal hopes on 
the intelligence and the vigor of the 
Saxon race. As far as depends on us, 
at least, I trust those hopes will not be 
disapi)ointed; and that, to the extent 
which may consist with our own seltlcHl, 
pacific policy, our opinii^ns and senti- 
ments may be brought to act on tlie 
right side, and to tlie right end, on an 
occasion which is, in truth, nothing le.s.s 
than a momentous question between an 
intelligent age, full of knowledge, thirst- 
ing for improvement, and cpiickeued by 
a thousand impulses, on one side, and tlie 
most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by 
unprecedented power, on the other. 

This asserted right of forcible inter- 
vention in the affairs of other nations is 
in open violation of the public law of 
the world. Who lias authorized these 
learned doctors of Troppau to establish 
new articles in this code? AVhence are 
their diplomas? Is the whole world ex- 
pected to acquiesce in principles which 
entirely subvert the independence of 
nations? On the basis of this indepen- 
dence has been reared the beautiful 
fabric of international law. On the 
principle of this independence, Europe 
has seen a family of nations flourishing 
within its limits, the small among the 
large, protected not always by power, 
but by a principle above power, by a 
sense of pi'opriety and justice. On this 
principle, the great commonweaUh of 
civilized states lias been hitherto upheld. 
There have been occasional departures 
or violations, and always disastrous, as 
in the case of Poland; but, in general, 
the harmony of the system has been 
wonderfully preserved. In the produc- 
tion and preservation of this sense of 
justice, this predominating principle, 
the Christian religion has acted a main 
part. Christianity and civilizat ion liave 
labored together; it seems, indeed, to be 
a law of our human condition, that they 
can live and flourish only together. Fiom 
their blended influence has ari.sen that 
delightful spectacle of the prevalence of 
rea.son and principle over jx)wer and in- 
terest, so well described by one wlio was 
an honor to the age ; — 



66 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



" And sovercip^n Law, the state's collected will, 
O'er thrones and tjkihes elate, 
Sits empress, — crownini;- good, repressing ill : 

Smit liy her sacred fi-own, 
The fiend". Discretion, like a vaj)or, sinks. 

And e'en the all-dazzling crown 
Hides his faint rays, and at her bidding 
shrinks." 



But this vision is past. While the teach- 
ers of Laybach give the rule, there will 
be no law but the law of the strongest. 

It may now be required of me to show 
•what interest we have in resisting this 
new system. What is it to us, it may 
be asked, upon what principles, or what 
pretences, the European governments 
assert a right of interfering in the 
affairs of their neighbors? The thun- 
der, it may be said, rolls at a distance. 
The wide At\tntic is between us and 
danger; and, however others may suf- 
fer, loe shall remain safe. 

I think it is a sufficient answer to this 
to say, that we are one of the nations of 
the earth; that we have an interest, 
therefore, in the preservation of that 
system of national law and national in- 
tercourse which has heretofore subsisted, 
so beneficially for all. Our system of 
government, it sliould also be remem- 
bered, is, throughout, founded on prin- 
ciples utterly hostile to the new code; 
and if we remain undisturbed by its 
operation, we shall owe our security 
either to our situation or our spirit. 
The enterprising character of the age, 
our own active, commercial spirit, the 
great increase which has taken place 
in the intercourse among civilized and 
commercial states, have necessarily con- 
nected us with other nations, and given 
us a high concern in the preservation of 
those salutary principles upon which 
that intercoiu'se is founded. We have 
as clear an interest in international 
law, as individuals have in the laws of 
society. 

But apart from the soundness of the 
policy, on the ground of direct interest, 
we have. Sir, a duty connected with 
this subject, which I trust we are will- 
ing to perform. What do we not owe 
to the cause of civil and religious lib- 
erty? to the principle of lawful resist- 
ance? to the principle that society has a 



right to partake in its own government? 
As the leading republic of the world, 
living and breathing in these principles, 
and advanced, by their operation, with 
imequalled rapidity in our career, shall 
we give our consent to bring them into 
disrepute and disgrace? It is neither 
ostentation nor boasting to say, that 
there lies before this country, in imme- 
diate prospect, a great extent and height 
of power. We are borne along towards 
this without effort, and not always even j 
with a full knowledge of the rapidity of 
our own motion. Circumstances which 
never combined before have co-operated 
in our favor, and a mighty current is set- 
ting us forward which we could not resist 
even if we would, and which, while we 
would stop to make an observation, and 
take the sun, has set us, at the end of 
the operation, far in advan'ce of the 
place where we commenced it. Does it 
not become us, then, is it not a duty 
imposed on us, to give our weight to 
the side of liberty and justice, to let 
mankind know that we are not tired 
of our own institutions, and to pro- 
test against tlie asserted power of alter- 
ing at pleasure the law of the civilized 
world? 

But whatever we do in this respect, it 
becomes us to do upon clear and con- 
sistent principles. There is an impor- 
tant topic in the message to which I have 
yet hardly alluded. I mean the rumored 
combination of the European Conti- 
nental sovereigns against the newly es- 
tablished free states of South America, 
Whatever position this government may 
take on that subject, I trust it will be 
one which can be defended on known 
and acknowledged grounds of right. 
The near approach or the remote dis- 
tance of danger may affect policy, but 
cannot change principle. The same 
reason that would authorize us to pro- 
test against unwarrantable combina- 
tions to interfere between Spain and her 
former colonies, would authorize us 
equally to protest if the same combina- 
tion were directed against the smallest 
state in Europe, although our duty to 
ourselves, our policy, and wisdom, might 
indicate very different courses as fit to 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



G7 



be pursued by us in the two cases. We 
sliall not, I tru.st, act upon the notion of 
clividintj the world with the Holy Alli- 
ance, and complain of nothing done by 
them in their hemisphere if they will 
not interfere witli ours. At least this 
would not be such a course of policy as 
I could recommend or sujiport. We 
have not offended, and I hope we do not 
intend to offend, in regard to South 
America, against any principle of na- 
tional independence or of public law. 
We have done nothing, we shall do 
nothing, that we need to hush up or to 
compromise by forbearing to express 
our sympathy for the cause of the Greeks, 
or our opinion of the course which other 
governments have adopted in regard to 
them. 

It may, in the next place, be asked, 
perhaps, Supposing all this to be true, 
what can we do? Are we to go to war? 
Are we to interfere in the Greek cause, 
or any other European cause? Are we 
to endanger our pacific relations? No, 
certainly not. What, then, the ques- 
tion recurs, remains for us? If we will 
not endanger our own peace, if we will 
neither furnish armies nor navies to the 
cause which we think the just one, what 
is there within our power? 

Sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. 
The time has been, indeed, when fleets, 
and armies, and subsidies, were the 
principal reliances even in the best 
cau.se. But, happily for mankind, a 
great change has taken place in this re- 
spect. JNIoral causes come into consid- 
eration, in proportion as the progress of 
knowh'dge is advanced; and the public 
opinion of the civilized world is rapidly 
gaining an ascendency over mere brutal 
force. It is already able to oppose the 
most formidable obstruction to the prog- 
ress of injustice and oppression; and as 
it gi-ows more intelligent and more in- 
tense, it will be more and more formi- 
dable. It may be silenced by military 
power, but it cannot be conquered. It 
is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable 
to the weapons of ordinary warfare. It 
is that impassible, inextinguishable 
enemy of mere violence and arbitrary 
rule, which, like Milton's angels, 



" Vital in every part, .... 
Cannot, but by annihilating, die." 

Until this be propitiated or satisfied, 
it is vain for power to talk either of 
triumphs or of repose. No matter what 
fields are desolated, what fortresses sm-- 
rendered, what armies subdued, or what 
provinces overrun. In the history of 
the year that has passed by us, and in 
the instance of unhappy Spain, W'C have 
seen the vanity of all triumphs in a 
cause which violates the general sense 
of justice of the civilized w^orld. It is 
nothing that the troops of France have 
passed from the Pyrenees to Cadiz; it 
is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate 
nation has fallen before them; it is 
nothing that arrests, and confiscation, 
and execution, sweep a'R'ay the little 
remnant of national resistance. There 
is an enemy that still exists to check the 
glory of these triumphs. It follows the 
conqueror back to the very scene of his 
ovations; it calls upon him to take no- 
tice that Europe, though silent, is yet 
indignant; it shows him that the sceptre 
of his victory is a barren sceptre; that it 
shall confer neither joy nor honor, but 
shall moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. . 
In the midst of his exultation, it pierces 
his ear with the cry of injured justice; 
it denounces against him the indigna- 
tion of an enlightened and civilized age; 
it turns to bitterness the cup of his re- 
joicing, and wounds him with the sting 
which belongs to the consciousness of 
having outraged the opinion of man- 
kind. 

In my opinion, Sir, the Spanish na- 
tion is now nearer, not only in point of 
time, but in point of circumstance, to 
the acquisition of a regulated govern- 
ment, than at the moment of the French 
invasion. Nations must, no doubt, un- 
dergo these trials in their progress to 
the establishment of free institutions. 
The very trials benefit them, and render 
them more capable both of obtaining 
and of enjoying the object which they 
seek. 

I shall not detain the conmiittee, Sir, 
by laying before it any statistical, geo- 
graphical, or commercial account of 
Greece. I have no knowledge on these 



68 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



subjects which is not common to all. 
It is universally admitted, that, within 
the last thirty or forty years, the condi- 
tion of Greece has been greatly im- 
proved. Her marine is at present re- 
spectable, containing the best sailors in 
the Mediterranean, better even, in that 
sea, than our own, as more accustomed 
to the long quarantines and other regu- 
lations which prevail -in its ports. The 
number of her seamen has been esti- 
mated as high as 50,000, but I suppose 
that estimate must be much too large. 
She has, probably, 150,000 tons of ship- 
ping. It is not easy to ascertain the 
amount of the Greek population. The 
Turkish government does not trouble 
itself with any of the calculations of 
political economy, and there has never 
been such a thing as an accurate census, 
probably, in any part of the Turkish 
empire. In the absence of all official 
information, private opinions widely dif- 
fer. By the tables which have been 
communicated, it would seem that there 
are 2,400,000 Greeks in Greece proper 
and the islands; an amount, as I am 
inclined to think, somewhat overrated. 
There are, probably, in the whole of 
European Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, 
and 2,000,000 more in the Asiatic do- 
minions of that power. 

The moral and intellectual progress 
of this numerous population, under the 
horrible oppression which crushes it, has 
been such as may well excite regard. 
Slaves, under barbarous masters, the 
Greeks have still aspired after the bless- 
ings of knowledge and civilization. Be- 
fore the breaking out of the present 
revolution, they had established schools, 
and colleges, and libraries, and the 
press. Wherever, as in Scio, owing to 
particular circumstances, the weight of 
oppression was mitigated, the natural 
vivacity of the Greeks, and their apti- 
tude for the arts, were evinced. Though 
certainly not on an equality with the 
civilized and Christian states of Europe, 
— and how is it possible, under such 
oppression as they endured, that they 
should be? — they yet furnished a strik- 
ing contrast with their Tartar masters. 
It has been well said, that it is not easy 



to form a just conception of the nature 
of the despotism exercised over them. 
Conquest and subjugation, as known 
among European states, are inadequate 
modes of expression by which to denote 
the dominion of the Turks. A conquest 
in the civilized world is generally no 
more than an acquisition of a new do- 
minion to the conquering country. It 
does not imply a never-ending bondage 
imposed upon the conquered, a perpetual 
mark, — an opprobrious distinction be- 
tween them and their masters; a bitter 
and unending persecution of their relig- 
ion ; an habitual violation of their rights 
of person and property, and the unre- 
strained indulgence towards them of 
every passion which belongs to the char- 
acter of a barbarous soldiery. Yet 
such is the state of Greece. The Otto- 
man power over them, obtained original- 
ly by the sword, is constantly presei-ved 
by the same means. Wlierever it exists, 
it is a mere military power. The relig- 
ious and civil code of the state being 
both fixed in the Koran, and equally the 
object of an ignorant and furious faith, 
have been found equally incapable of 
change. " The Turk," it has been said, 
" has been encamped in Europe for four 
centuries." He has hardly any more 
participation in European manners, 
knowledge, and arts, than when he 
crossed the Bosphorus. But this is not 
the worst. The power of the emj^ii-e is 
fallen into anarchy, and as the principle 
which belongs to the head belongs also 
to the parts, there are as many despots 
as there are pachas, beys, and viziers. 
Wars are almost perpetual between the 
Sultan and some rebellious governor of 
a province ; and in the conflict of these 
despotisms, the people are necessarily 
ground between the upper and the nether 
millstone. In short, the Christian sub- 
jects of the Sublime Porte feel daily all 
the miseries which flow from despotism, 
from anarchy, from slavery, and from 
religious persecution. If any thing yet 
remains to heighten such a picture, let 
it be added, that every oflice in the 
government is not only actually, but 
professedly, venal, — the pachalics, the 
vizierates, the cadiships, and whatsoever 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



69 



other denominatiou may denote the de- 
positaiy of power. In the whole world, 

Sir, thei-e is no such oppression felt as 
by the Christian Greeks. In various 
parts of India, to be sure, the govern- 
ment is bad enough ; but then it is the 
government of barbarians over barbari- 
ans, and the feeling of oppression is, of 
course, not so keen . There the oppressed 
are perhaps not better than their oppres- 
sors; but in the case of Greece, there are 
millions of Christian men, not without 
knowledge, not \\ithout refinement, not 
without a strong thirst for all the pleas- 
m-es of civilized life, trampled into the 
very earth, century after century, by a 
pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. 
Sir, the case is unique. There exists, 
and has existed, nothing like it. The 
world has no such misery to show; there 
is no case in which Christian comnmni- 
ties can be called upon with such em- 
phasis of appeal. 

But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, 
indeed I need have said nothing to 
satisfy the House, that it must be some 
new combination of circumstances, or 
new views of policy in the cabinets of 
Europe, which have caused this interest- 
ing struggle not merely to be regarded 
with indifference, but to be marked with 
opprobrium. The very statement of the 
case, as a contest between the Turks and 
Greeks, sufficiently indicates what must 
be the feeling of every individual, and 
every government, that is not biassed by 
a particular interest, or a particular feel- 
ing, to disregard the dictates of justice 
and humanity. 

And now, Sir, what has been the con- 
duct pursued by the Allied Powers in 
regard to this contest? When the revo- 
lution broke out, the sovereigns were 
assembled in congress at Laybach ; and 
the papers of that assembly sufficiently 
manifest their sentiments. They pro- 
claim their abhorrence of those " crimi- 
nal combinations which had been formed 
in the eastern parts of Europe"; and, 
although it is possible that this denun- 
ciation was aimed, more particularly, 
at the disturbances in the provinces of 
Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no excep- 
tion is nuide, from its general terms, in 



favor of those events in Greece which 
were properly the commencement of her 
revolution, and wliich could not but be 
well known at Laybach, before the date 
of these declarations. Now it must be 
remembered, that Russia was a leading 
party in this denunciation of the efforts 
of the Greeks to achieve their libera- 
tion; and it cannot but be expected by 
Russia, that the world should also re- 
member what part she herself has here- 
tofore acted in the same concern. It is 
notorious, that within the last half-cen- 
tury she hits again and again excited the 
(ireeks to rebellion against the Porte, 
and that she has constantly kept alive in 
them the hope that she would, one day, 
by her own great power, break the yoke 
of their oppressor. Indeed, the earnest 
attention witli whicli Russia has regarded 
Greece goes much farther back than to 
the time I have mentioned. Ivan the 
Third, in 1I:S2, having espoused a Gre- 
cian princess, heiress of the last Greek 
Emperor, discarded St. George from the 
Russian arms, and adopted the Greek 
two-headed black eagle, which has con- 
tinued in the Russian arms to the pres- 
ent day. In virtue of the same marriage, 
the Russian princes claim the Greek 
throne as their inheritance. 

Under Peter the Great, the policy of 
Russia developed itself more fully. In 
1096, he rendered himself master of 
Azof, and, in 1698, obtained the right to 
pass the Dardanelles, and to maintain, 
by that route, commercial intercourse 
with the jNIediterranean. He had emissa- 
ries throughout Greece, and particularly 
applied himself to gain the clergy. He 
adopted tlie Laharum of Constantine, 
"In hoc signo vinces " ; and medals 
were struck, with the inscription, "Pe- 
trus I. Russo- Gra;corum Imperator." 
In whatever new direction the princi- 
ples of the Holy Alliance may now load 
the politics of Russia, or whatever course 
she may suppose Christianity now pre- 
scribes to her, in regard to the Greek 
cause, the time has been when she pro- 
fessed to be contending for that cause, 
as identified with Christianity. The 
white banner under which the soldiers 
of Peter the Fii'st usually fought, bore, 



70 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



as its inscription, " In the name of the 
Prince, and for our country." Relying 
on the aid of the Greeks, in his war 
with the Porte, he changed the white 
flag to red, and displayed on it the words, 
"In the name of God, and for Christi- 
anity." The unfortunate issue of this 
war is well known. Though Anne and 
Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did 
not possess his active character, they 
kept up a constant communication with 
Greece, and held out hopes of restoring 
the Greek empire. Catharine the Sec- 
ond, as is well known, excited a general 
revolt in 1769. A Russian fleet ap- 
peared in the Mediterranean, and a Rus- 
sian army was landed in the Morea. 
The Greeks in the end were disgusted 
at being expected to take an oath of alle- 
giance to Russia, and the Empress was 
disgusted because they refused to take 
it. In 1774, peace was signed between 
Russia and the Porte, and the Greeks of 
the Morea were left to their fate. By 
this treaty the Porte acknowledged the 
independence of the Khan of the Crimea ; 
a preliminary step to the acquisition of 
that country by Russia. It is not un- 
worthy of remark, as a circumstance 
which distinguished this from most 
other diplomatic transactions, that it 
conceded to the cabinet of St. Peters- 
buig the right of intervention in the 
interior affairs of Turkey, in regard 
to whatever concerned the religion of 
the Greeks. The cruelties and massa- 
cres that happened to the Greeks after 
the peace between Russia and the Porte, 
notwithstanding the general pardon 
which had been stipulated for them, 
need not now be recited. Instead of 
retracing the deplorable picture, it is 
enough to say, that in this respect the 
past is justly reflected in the present. 
The Empress soon after invaded and 
conquered the Crimea, and on one of the 
gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to 
be inscribed, " The road to Byzantium." 
The present Emperor, on his accession 
to the throne, manifested an intention 
to adopt the policy of Catharine the 
Second as his own, and the woi'ld has 
not been right in all its suspicions, if a 
project for the partition of Turkey did 



not form a part of the negotiations of 
Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit. 

AH this course of policy seems sud- 
denly to be changed. Turkey is no 
longer regarded, it would appear, as an 
object of partition or acquisition, and 
Greek revolts have all at once become, 
according to the declaration of Laybach, 
"criminal combinations." The recent 
congress at Verona exceeded its prede- 
cessor at Laybach in its denunciations of 
tlie Greek struggle. In the circular of 
the 14th of December, 1822, it declared 
the Grecian resistance to the Turkish 
power to be rash and culpable, and la- 
mented that "the firebrand of rebel- 
lion had been thrown into the Otto- 
man empire." This rebuke and crimi- 
nation we know to have proceeded on 
those settled principles of conduct which 
the Continental powers had prescribed 
for themselves. The sovereigns saw, as 
well as others, the real condition of the 
Greeks; they knew as well as others 
that it was most natural and most justi- 
fiable, that they should endeavor, at 
whatever hazard, to change that condi- 
tion. They knew that they themselves, 
or at least one of them, had more than 
once urged the Greeks to similar efforts; 
that they themselves had thrown the 
same firebrand into the midst of the 
Ottoman empire. And yet, so much 
does it seem to be their fixed object to 
discountenance whatsoever threatens to 
disturb the actual government of any 
country, that. Christians as they were, 
and allied, as they professed to be, for 
purposes most important to human hap- 
piness and religion, they have not hesi- 
tated to declare to the world that they 
have wholly forborne to exercise any 
compassion to the Greeks, simply be- 
cause they thought that they saw, in the 
struggles of the Morea, the sign of revo- 
lution. This, then, is coming to a jilain, 
practical result, i The Grecian revolution . 
has been discouraged, discountenanced, 
and denounced, solely because it is a 
revolution. Independent of all inquiry 
into the reasonableness of its causes or 
the enormity of the ojipression which 
produced it; regardless of the peculiar 
claims which Greece possesses upon the 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



71 



civilized world; and regardless of what 
has been their own conduct towards her 
for a century ; regardless of the interest 
of the Christian religion, — the sover- 
eigns at Verona seized upon the case of 
the Greek revolution as one above all 
others calculated to illustrate the fixed 
principles of their policy. The abomi- 
nable rule of the Porte on one side, the 
value and the suiferings of the Christian 
Greeks on the other, furnished a case 
likely to convince even an incredulous 
world of the sincerity of the professions 
of the Allied Powers. They embraced 
the occasion with apparent ardor: and 
the world, I trust, is satisfied. 

We see here, Mr. Chairman, the 
direct and actual application of that 
system which I have attempted to de- 
scribe. We see it in the very case of 
Greece. We learn, authentically and 
indisputably, that the Allied Powers, 
holding that all changes in legislation 
and administration ought to proceed 
from kings alone, were wholly inexora- 
ble to the sufferings of the Greeks, and 
entirely hostile to their success. Now 
it is upon this practical result of the 
principle of the Continental powers that 
I wish this House to intimate its opin- 
ion. The great question is a question 
of principle. Greece is only the signal 
instance of the application of that prin- 
ciple. If the principle be right, if we 
esteem it conformable to the law of na- 
tions, if we have nothing to say against 
it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to ex- 
press an opinion on the subject, then, of 
course, no resolution ought to pass. If, 
on the other hand, we see in the declara- 
tions of the Allied Powers principles, not 
only utterly hostile to our own free insti- 
tutions, but hostile also to the inde- 
pendence of all nations, and altogether 
opposed to the improvement of the con- 
dition of human nature; if, in the in- 
stance before us, we see a most striking 
exposition and application of those prin- 
ciples, and if we deem our opinions to 
be entitled to any weight in the estima- 
tion of mankind, — then I think it is 
our duty to adopt some such measure 
as the proposed resolution. 

It is worthy of observation, Sir, that 



as early as July, 1821, Baron Strogonoff, 
the Russian minister at Constantinople, 
represented to the Porte, that, if the un- 
distinguished massacres of the Greeks, 
both of such as were in open resistance 
and of those who remained patient in 
their submission were continued, and 
should become a settled habit, they 
would give just cause of war against the 
Porte to all Christian states. Tliis was 
in 1821.^ It was followed, early in the 
next year, by that inde.scribable enor- 
mity, that appalling monument of bar- 
barian cruelty, the destruction of Scio; 
a scene I shall not attempt to describe ; a 
scene from which human nature shrinks 
.shuddering away; a scene having hardly 
a pai'allel in the history of fallen man. 
This scene, too, was quickly followed by 
the massacres in Cj'prus ; and all these 
things were perfectly known to the 
Christian powers assembled at Verona. 
Yet these powers, instead of acting upon 
the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff, 
and which one would think had been 
then fully made out, — instead of being 
moved by any compassion for the suffer- 
ings of the Greeks, — these powers, these 
Christian powers, rebuke their gallantry 
and insult their sufferings by accusing 
them of " throwing a firebrand into the 
Ottoman empire." S'uch, Sir, appear 
to me to be the principles on which the 
Continental powers of Europe have 
agreed hereafter to act; and this, an 
eminent instance of the application of 
those principles. 

I shall not detain the committee, Mr. 
Chairman, by any attempt to recite the 
events of the Greek struggle up to the 
present time. Its origin may be found, 
doubtless, in that improved state of 
knowledge which, for some years, has 
been gradually taking place in that 
country. The emancipation of Uie 
Greeks has been a subject frecjuently 
discu.ssed in modern times. They them- 
selves are represented as having a vivid 
remembrance of the distinction of their 
ancestors, not unmixed with an indig- 
nant feeling that civilized and Christian 
Europe should not ere now have aided 

1 Annual Register for 1821, p. 251. 



72 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



them in breaking their intolerable 
fetters. 

In 1816 a society was founded in 
Vienna for the encouragement of Gre- 
cian literature. It was connected with 
a similar institution at Athens, and 
another in Thessaly, called the "Gym- 
nasium of Mount Pelion." The treas- 
ury and general office of the institution 
were established at Munich. No politi- 
cal object was avowed by these insti- 
tutions, probably none contemplated. 
Still, however, they had their effect, no 
doubt, in hastening that condition of 
things in which the Greeks felt compe- 
tent to the establishment of their inde- 
pendence. Many young inen have been 
for years annually sent to the universi- 
ties in the western states of Europe for 
their education; and, after the general 
pacification of Europe, many military 
men, discharged from other employ- 
ment, were ready to enter even into so 
unpromising a service as that of the 
revolutionary Greeks. 

In 1820, war commenced between the 
Porte and Ali, the well-known Pacha of 
Albania. Differences existed also with 
Persia and with Russia. In this state 
of things, at the beginning of 1821, 
an insurrection broke out in Moldavia, 
under the direction of Alexander Ypsi- 
lanti, a well-educated soldier, who had 
been major-general in the Russian 
service. Fi'om his character, and the 
number of those who seemed inclined to 
join him, he was supposed to be coun- 
tenanced by the court of St. Petersburg. 
This, however, was a great mistake, 
which the Emperor, then at Laybach, 
took an early opportunity to rectify. 
The Turkish government was alarmed 
at these occurrences in the northern 
provinces of European Turkey, and 
caused search to be made of all vessels 
entering the Black Sea, lest arms or 
other military means should be sent in 
that manner to the insurgents. This 
proved inconvenient to the commerce of 
Russia, and caused some unsatisfactory 
correspondence between the two powers. 
It may be worthy of remark, as an 
exhil)ition of national character, that, 
agitated by these appearances of intes- 



tine commotion, the Sultan issued a 
proclamation, calling on all true Mus- 
sulmans to renounce the pleasures of 
social life, to prepare arms and horses, 
and to return to the manner of their 
ancestors, the life of the plains. The 
Turk seems to have thought that he had, 
at last, caught something of the danger- 
ous contagion of European civilization, 
and that it was necessary to reform 
his habits, by recurring to the original 
manners of military i-oving barbarians. 
It was about this time, that is to say, 
at the commencement of 1821, that 
the revolution burst out in various parts 
of Greece and the isles. Circumstances, 
certainly, were not unfavorable to the 
movement, as one portion of the Turk- 
ish army was employed in the war 
against Ali Pacha in Albania, and an- 
other part in the provinces north of the 
Danube. The Greeks soon possessed 
themselves of the open country of the 
Morea, and drove their enemy into the 
fortresses. Of these, that of Tripolitza, 
with the city, fell into their hands, in 
the course of the summer. Having 
after these first movements obtained 
time to breathe, it became, of course, 
an early object to establish a govern- 
ment. For this purpose delegates of 
the people assembled, under that name 
which describes the assembly in which 
we ourselves sit, that name which 
"freed the Atlantic," a Congress. A 
writer, who undertakes to render to the 
civilized worl^ that service which was 
once performed by Edmund Burke, I 
mean the compiler of the English An- 
nual Register, asks, by what authority 
this assembly could call itself a Con- 
gress. Simply, Sir, by the same au- 
thority by which the people of the 
United States have given the same 
name to their own legislature. We, at 
least, should be naturally inclined to 
think, not only as far as names, but 
things also, are concerned, that the 
Greeks could hardly have begun their 
revolution under better auspices; since 
they have endeavored to render applica- 
ble to themselves the general principles 
of our form of government, as well as 
its name. This constitution went into 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



73 



operation at the coniraencement of the 
next year. In the mean time, the war 
with Ali Pacha was ended, lie liaving 
surrendered, and being afterwards as- 
sassinated, by an instance of treachery 
and perfidy, whicli, if it liad happened 
elsewhere than nnder the government of 
the Turks, would have deserved notice. 
The negotiation with Russia, too, took 
a turn unfavorable to the Greeks. The 
great point upon which Russia insisted, 
beside the abandonment of the measure 
of searching vessels bound to the Hlack 
Sea, was, that the Porte should with- 
draw its armies from the neighborhood 
of the Russian frontiers; and the imme- 
diate consequence of this, when effected, 
was to add so much more to the disposa- 
ble force ready to be employed against 
the Greeks. These events seemed to 
have left the whole force of the Ottoman 
empire, at the commencement of 1822, 
in a condition to be employed against 
the Greek rebellion; and, accordingly, 
very many anticipated the immediate 
destruction of the cause. The event, 
however, was ordered otherwise. Where 
the greatest effort was made, it was met 
and defeated. Entering the Morea with 
an army which seemed capable of bear- 
ing down all resistance, the Turks were 
nevertheless defeated and driven back, 
and pursued beyond the isthmus, within 
which, as far as it appears, from that 
time to the present, they have not been 
able to set their foot. 

It was in April of this year that the 
destruction of Scio took place. That 
island, a sort of appanage of the Sul- 
tana mother, enjoyed many privileges 
peculiar to itself. In a population of 
180,000 or 140,000, it had no more than 
2,000 or 3,000 Turks; indeed, by some 
accounts, not near as many. The ab- 
sence of these ruffian masters had in 
some degree allowed opportunity for the 
promotion of knowledge, the accumula- 
tion of wealth, and the general cultiva- 
tion of society. Here was the seat of 
modern Greek literature; here were 
libraries, printing-presses, and other es- 
tablishments, which indicate some ad- 
vancement in refinement and knowledge. 
Certain of the inhabitants of Samos, it 



would seem, envious of this comparative 
happiness of Scio, landed upon the isl- 
and in an irregular multitude, for the 
purpose of compelling its inhabitants to 
make common cause with their country- 
men against their oppressors. These, 
being joined by the peasantry, marched 
to the city and drove the Turks into the 
castle. The Turkish fleet, lately rein- 
forced from Egypt, happened to be in 
the neighboring seas, and, learning 
these events, landed a force on the isl- 
and of fifteen thousand men. There 
was nothing to resist such an army. 
These troops immediately entered the 
city and began an indiscriminate mas- 
sacre. The city was fired; and in four 
days the fire and sword of the Turk ren- 
dered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass 
of blood and ashes. The details are too 
shocking to be recited. Forty thousand 
women and children, unhappily saved 
from the general destruction, were after- 
wards sold in the market of Smyrna, 
and sent off into distant and hopeless 
servitude. Even on the wharves of our 
own cities, it has been said, have been 
sold the utensils of those hearths which 
now exist no longer. Of the whole 
population which I have mentioned, not 
above nine hundred persons were left 
living upon the island. I will only 
repeat. Sir, that these tragical scenes 
were as fully known at the Congress of 
Verona, as they are now known to us ; 
and it is not too much to call on the 
powers that constituted that congress, 
in the name of conscience and in the 
name of humanity, to tell us if there be 
nothing even in these unparalleled ex- 
cesses of Turkish barbarity to excite a 
sentiment of compassion ; nothing which 
they regard as so objectionable as even 
the very idea of popular resistance to 
power. 

The events of the year which has just 
passed by, as far as they have become 
known to us, have been even more favor- 
able to the Greeks than those of the 
year preceding. I omit all details, as 
being as well known to others as to my- 
self. Suffice it to say, that with no other 
enemy to contend with, and no diversion 
of his force to other objects, the Porto 



74 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



has not been able to carry the war into 
the Morea; and that, by the last ac- 
counts, its armies were acting defensively 
in Thessaly. I pass over, also, the naval 
engagements of the Greeks, altliough 
that is a mode of warfare in which they 
are calculated to excel, and in which 
they have already performed actions of 
such distinguished skill and bravery, as 
would draw applause upon the best 
mariners in the world. The present 
state of the war would seem to be, that 
the Greeks possess the whole of the 
Morea, with the exception of the three 
fortresses of Patras, Coron, and Modon ; 
all Candia, but one fortress; and most 
of the other islands. They possess the 
citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and sev- 
eral other places in Livadia. They 
have been able to act on the offensive, 
and to carry the war beyond the isthmus. 
There is no reason to believe their ma- 
rine is weakened ; more probably, it is 
strengthened. But, what is most impoi-- 
tant of all, they have obtained time and 
experience. They have awakened a sym- 
pathy throughout Europe and through- 
out America; and they have formed a 
government which seems suited to the 
emergency of their condition. 

Sir, they have done much. It would 
be great injustice to compare their 
achievements with our own. We began 
our Revolution, already possessed of 
government, and, comparatively, of civil 
liberty. Our ancestors had from the 
first been accustomed in a great measure 
to govern themselves. They were famil- 
iar with popular elections and legislative 
assemblies, and well acquainted with the 
general principles and practice of free 
governments. They had little else to do 
than to throw oif the paramount author- 
ity of the parent state. Enough was 
still left, both of law and of organiza- 
tion, to conduct society in its accustomed 
course, and to unite men together for a 
common object. The Greeks, of course, 
could act with little concert at the be- 
ginning; they were unaccustomed to the 
exercise of power, without experience, 
with limited knowledge, witliout aid, 
and surrounded by nations which, what- 
ever claims the Greeks might seem to 



have upon them, have afforded them 
nothing but discouragement and re- 
proach. They have held out, however, 
for three campaigns; and that, at least, 
is something. Constantinople and the 
northern provinces have sent forth thou- 
sands of troops; — they have been de- 
feated. Tripoli, and Algiers, and Egypt, 
have contributed their marine contin- 
gents; — they have not kept the ocean. ^ 
Hordes of Tartars have crossed the Bos- 
phorus ; — they have died where the 
Persians died. The powerful monar- 
chies in the neighborhood have de- 
nounced their cause, and admonished 
them to abandon it and submit to tlieir 
fate. They have answered them, that, 
although two hundred thousand of their 
countrymen have offered up their lives, 
there yet remain lives to offer; and that 
it is the determination of all, "yes, of 
ALL," to persevere until they shall have 
established their liberty, or until the 
power of their oppressors shall have re- 
lieved them from the burden of exist- 
ence. 

It may now be asked, perhaps, whether 
the expression of our own sympathy, and 
that of the country, may do them good? 
I hope it may. It may give them cour- 
age and spirit, it may assure them of 
public regard, teach them that they are 
not wholly forgotten by the civilized 
world, and inspire them with constancy 
in the pursuit of their great end. At 
any rate. Sir, it appears to me that the 
measure which I have proposed is due 
to our own character, and called for by 
our own duty. When we shall have 
discharged that duty, we may leave the 
rest to the disposition of Providence. 

I do not see how it can be doubted 
that this measure is entirely pacific. I 
profess my inability to perceive that it 
has any possible tendency to involve our 
neutral relations. If the resolution pass, 
it is not of necessity to be immediately 
acted on. It will not be acted on at all, 
unless, in the opinion of the President, 
a proper and safe occasion for acting 
upon it shall arise. If we adopt the 
resolution to-day, our relations with 
every foreign state will be to-morrow 
precisely what they now are. The reso- 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



75 



lution will be sufficient to express our 
sentiments on the subjects to wliich I 
liave adverted. Useful for that purpose, 
it can be mischievous for no purpose. 
If the topic were properly introduced 
into the message, it cannot be improperly 
introduced into discussion in this House. 
If it were proper, which no one doubts, 
for the President to express his opinions 
upon it, it cannot, 1 think, be improper 
for us to express ours. The only certain 
effect of this resolution is to signify, in 
a form usual in bodies constituted like 
this, our approbation of the general 
sentiment of tlie message. Do we wish 
to withhold that approbation V The res- 
olution confers on the President no new 
power, nor does it enjoin on him the 
exercise of any new duty; nor does it 
hasten him in the discharge of any exist- 
ing duty. 

I cannot imagine that this resolution 
can add any thing to those excitements 
which it has been supposed, I think very 
causelessly, might possibly provoke the 
Turkish government to acts of hostility. 
There is already the message, expressing 
the hope of success to the Greeks and 
disaster to the Turks, in a much stronger 
manner than is to be implied from the 
terms of this resolution. There is the 
correspondence between the Secretary of 
State and the Greek Agent in London, 
already made public, in which similar 
wishes are expressed, and a continuance 
of the correspondence apparently in- 
vited. I miglit add to this, the unex- 
ampled burst of feeling which this cause 
has called forth from all classes of so- 
ciety, and the notorious fact of pecuniary 
contributions made throughout the coun- 
try for its aid and advancement. After 
all this, whoever can see cause of danger 
to our pacific relations from the adoption 
of this resolution has a keener vision 
than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no 
augmented danger; there is no danger. 
The question comes at last to this, 
whether, on a subject of this sort, this 
House holds an opinion which is worthy 
to be expressed. 

Even suppose. Sir, an agent or com- 
missioner were to be immediately sent, 
■ — a measure which I myself believe to 



be the proper one, — there is no breach 
of neutrality, nor any just cause of 
offence. Such an agent, of course, 
would not be accredited; he would not 
be a public minister. The object would 
be inquiry and information; inquiry 
which we have a right to make, infor- 
mation which we are interested to pos- 
sess. If a dismemberment of the Turkish 
empire be taking place, or has already 
taken place ; if a new state be rising, or 
be already risen, in the Mediterranean, — 
who can doubt, that, without any breach 
of neutrality, we may inform ourselves 
of these events for the government of 
our own concerns? The Greeks have 
declared the Turkish coasts in a state of 
blockade; may we not inform ourselves 
whether this blockade be nominal or 
real ? and, of course, whether it shall be 
regarded or disregarded? The greater 
our trade may happen to be with Smyrna, 
a consideration which seems to have 
alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is 
the reason, in my opinion, why we 
should seek to be accurately informed 
of those events which may affect its 
safety. It seems to me impossible, 
therefore, for any reasonable man to 
imagine that this resolution can expose 
us to the resentment of the Sublime 
Porte. 

As little reason is there for fearing its 
consequences upon the conduct of the 
Allied Powers. They may, very natu- 
rally, dislike our sentiments upon the 
subject of the Greek revolution; but 
what those sentiments are they will 
much more explicitly leam in the Pres- 
ident's message than in this resolution. 
They might, indeed, prefer that we 
should express no dissent from the doc- 
trines which they have avowed, and tiie 
ai)plication which they have made of 
those doctrines to the case of Greece. 
But I trust we are not disposed to leave 
them in any doubt as to our sentiments 
upon these important subjects. They 
have expressed their opinions, and do 
not call that expression of opinion an 
interference; in which respect they are 
right, as the expression of opinion in 
such cases is not such an interference as 
would justify the Greeks in considering 



76 



THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 



the powers at war with them. For the 
same reason, any expression which we 
may make of different principles and 
different sympathies is no interference. 
No one would call the President's mes- 
sage an interference; and yet it is )nuch 
stronger in that respect than this reso- 
lution. If either of them could be con- 
strued to be an interference, no doubt it 
would be improper, at least it would be 
so according to my view of the subject ; 
for the very thing which I have at- 
tempted to resist in the com-se of these 
observations is the right of foreign inter- 
ference. But neither the message nor 
the resolution has that character. There 
is not a power in Europe which can sup- 
pose, that, in expressing our opinions on 
this occasion, we are governed by any 
desire of aggrandizing ourselves or of 
injuring others. We do no more than 
to maintain those established principles 
in which we have an interest in common 
with other nations, and to resist the in- 
troduction of new principles and new 
rules, calculated to destroy the relative 
independence of states, and particularly 
hostile to the whole fabric of our gov- 
ernment. 

I close, then, Sir, with repeating, that 
the object of this resolution is to avail 
ourselves of the interesting occasion of 



the Greek revolution to make our pro- 
test against the doctrines of the Allied 
Powers, both as they are laid down in 
principle and as they are applied in 
practice. I think it right, too, Sir, not 
to be unseasonable in the expression of 
our regard, and, as far as that goes, in 
a manifestation of our sympathy with a 
long oppressed and now struggling peo- 
ple. I am not of those who would, in 
the hour of utmost peril, withhold such 
encouragement as might be properly and 
lawfully given, and, when the crisis 
should be past, overwhelm the rescued 
sufferer with kindness and caresses. 
The Greeks address the civilized world 
with a pathos not easy to be resisted. 
They invoke our favor by more moving 
considerations than can well belong to 
the condition of any other people. They 
stretch out their arms to the Christian 
communities of the earth, beseeching 
them, by a generous recollection of their 
ancestors, by the consideration of their 
desolated and ruined cities and villages, 
by their wives and children sold into an 
accursed slavery, by their blood, which 
they seem willing to pour out like water, 
by the common faith, and in the name, 
which unites all Christians, that they 
would extend to them at least some token 
of compassionate regard. 



THE TARIFF. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ON THE 1st AND 2d OF APRIL, 182-1. 



[At an early period of the session of Con- 
gress of 182-"}-21 a bill was introduced into 
tiie House of Representatives to amend the 
several acts laying duties on imports. The 
object of the bill was a comprehensive re- 
vision of the existing laws, with a view to 
the extension of the protective system. The 
bill became the subject of a protracted de- 
bate, in which much of the talent of the 
House on both sides was engaged. Mr. 
M'ebster took an active part in the discus- 
sion, and spoke upon many of the details of 
the bill, while it remained in the committee 
of the whole House on the state of the 
Union. Several objectionable provisions 
were removed, and various amendments 
were introduced upon his motion ; and it 
was a matter of regret to him, as seen in 
the following speech, that the friends of the 
bill were not able or willing to bring it into 
a form in which, as a whole, he could give 
it his support. On the 30th and 31st of 
March, Mr. Clay, Speaker of the House, 
addressed the committee of the whole, at 
length and with great ability, on the gen- 
eral principles of the bill ; and he was suc- 
ceeded by Mr. Webster, on the 1st and 2d 
of April, in the following speech.] 

Mk. Chairman, — I will avail my- 
self of the present occasion to make 
some remarks on certain principles and 
opinions wliich have been recently ad- 
vanced, and on those considerations 
^vl)icll, in my judgment, ouglit to gov- 
ern us in deciding upon tlie several and 
respective parts of this very important 
and complex measm-e. I can truly say 
that this is a painful duty. I deeply re- 
gret the necessity whicli is likely to be 
imposed upon me of giving a general 
affirmative or negative vote on the whole 
of tlie bill. 1 cannot but think this 
mode of proceeding liable to great objec- 



tions. It exposes both those who sup- 
port and those who oppose the measure 
to very unjust and injurious misappre- 
hensions. There may be good reasons 
for favoring some of the" provisions of 
the bill, and equally strong reasons for 
opposing others ; and these provisions do 
not stand to each other in the relation of 
principal and incident. If that were the 
case, those who are in favor of the prin- 
cipal might forego their opinions ujwn 
incidental and subordinate provisions. 
But the bill proposes enactments entirely 
distinct and diiferent from one another 
in character and tendency. Some of its 
clauses are intended merely for revenue ; 
and of those which regard the protection 
of home manufactures, one part stands 
upon very different grounds from those 
of other parts. So that probably every 
gentleman who may ultimately support 
the bill will vote for much wliich 
his judgment does not approve; and 
those who oppose it will oppo.se some- 
thing which they would very gladly sup- 
port. 

Being intrusted with the interests of 
a district highly commercial, and deeply 
intere.sted in manufactures also, I wish 
to state my opinions on the present 
measure, not as on a whole, for it has no 
entire and homogeneous character, but 
as on a collection of different enact- 
ments, some of which meet my approba- 
tion and some of which do not. 

And allow me, Sir, in tlie first place, 
to state my regret, if indeed I ought 
not to express a waraier sentiment, at 



78 



THE TARIFF. 



the names or designations which Mr. 
Speaker ' has seen fit to adopt for the 
purpose of describing the advocates and 
the opposers of the present bill. It is a 
question, he says, between the friends of 
an "American policy" and those of a 
"foreign policy." This, Sir, is an as- 
sumption which I take the liberty most 
directly to deny. Mr. Speaker certainly 
intended nothing invidious or deroga- 
tory to any part of the House by this 
mode of denominating friends and ene- 
mies. But there is power in names, 
and this manner of distinguishing those 
who favor and those who oppose i^artic- 
ular measures may lead to inferences to 
which no member of the House can 
submit. It may imj^ly that there is a 
more exclusive and peculiar regard to 
American interests in one class of opin- j 
ions than in another. Such an impli- ; 
cation is to be resisted and repelled./ 
Every member has a right to the pre-j 
sumption, that he pursues what he he- 
lieves to be the interest of his country 
with as sincere a zeal as any other mem- 
ber. I elaim this in my own case ; and 
while I shall not, for any purpose of de- 
scription or convenient arrangement use 
terms which may imply any disrespect 
to other men's opinions, much less any 
imputation upon other men's motives, 
it is my duty to take care that the use of 
such terms by others be not, against the 
will of those who adopt them, made to 
produce a false impression. 

Indeed, Sir, it is a little astonishing, 
if it seemed convenient to Mr. Speaker, 
for the purposes of distinction, to make 
use of the terms " American policy " and 
"foreign policy," that he should not 
have applied them in a manner precisely 
the reverse of that in which he has in 
fact used them. If names are thoua'ht 
necessary, it would be well enough, one 
would think, that the name should be in 
some measure descriptive of the thing; 
and since Mr. Speaker denominates the 
policy which he recommends ' ' a new 
policy in this country " ; since he speaks 
of the present measure as a new era in 
our legislation ; since he professes to in- 

1 Mr. Clay. 



vite us to depart from our accustomed 
course, to instruct ourselves by the wis- 
dom of others, and to adopt the policy 
of the most distinguished foreign states, 
— one is a little curious to know with 
what propriety of speech this imitation 
of other nations is denominated an 
' ' American policy, ' ' while, on the contra- 
ry, a preference for our ow^n established 
system, as it now actually exists and 
always has existed, is called a " foreig-n 
policy." This favorite American policy 
is what America has never tried; and 
this odious foreign policy is what, as we 
are told, foreign states have never pur- 
sued.y Sir, that is the truest American 
policy which shall most usefully employ 
American capital and American labor, 
/and best sustain the whole population. 
With me it is a fundamental axiom, it 
is interwoven with all my opinions, that 
the great interests of the country are 
united and inseparable; that agricul- 
ture, commerce, and manufactures will 
prosper together or lang-uish together; 
and that all legislation is dangerous 
which proposes to benefit one of these 
without looking to consequences which 
may fall on the others. J^-^ — — "^ — " 

Passing from this. Sir, I am bound to 
say that Mr. Speaker began his able and 
impressive speech at the proper point of 
inquiry, ^ I mean the present state and 
condition df the country, — although I 
am so unfortunate, or rather although I 
am so happy, as to differ from him very 
widely in regard to that condition. I 
dissent entirely from the justice of that 
pictm-e of distress w'hich he has drawn. 
I have not seen the reality, and know- 
not where it exists. Within my obser- 
vation, there is no cause for so gloomy 
and terrifying a representation. In re- 
spect to the New England States, with 
the condition of which I am of course 
best acquainted, the present appears to 
me a period of very general prosperity. 
Xot, indeed, a time for sudden acquisi- 
tion and ^ great profits, not a day of 
extraordinary activity and successful 
speculation. There is no doubt a con- 
siderable depression of prices, and, in 
some degree, a stagnation of business. 
But the case presented by Mr. Speaker 



THE TARIFF. 



79 



was not one of depression , but of distress ; 
of universal, pervading, intense distress, 
limited to no class and to no place. We 
are represente^^l as on the very verge and 
brink of national ruin. So far from ac- 
quiescing in these opinions, I believe 
there has been no period in which the 
general prosperity was better secured, 
or rested on a more solid foundation. 
As applicable to the Eastern States, I 
put this remark to their representatives, 
a' and ask them if it is not true.^ When 
has there been a time in which the 
means of livhig have been more accessi- 
ble and more abundant? When has la- 
bor been rewarded, I do not say with a 
larger, but with a more certain success'/ 
Trofits, indeed, are low; in some pur- 
suits of life, which it is not proposed to 
benefit, but to burden, by this bill, very 
low. But still I am unacquainted with 
any proofs of extraordinary distress. 
What, indeed, are the general indica- 
tions of the state of the country? There 
is no famine nor pestilence in the land, 
nor war, nor desolation. There is no 
writhing under the burden of taxation. 
The means of subsistence are abundant ; 
and at the very moment when the mis- 
erable condition of the country is as- 
serted, it is admitted that the wages of 
labor are high in comparison with those 
of any other country. A country, then, 
enjoying a profound peace, perfect civil 
liberty, with the means of subsistence 
cheap and abundant, with the reward of 
labor sure, and its wages higher than 
any^vhere else, cannot be represented as 
in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but 
by the effort of extraordinary powers of 
tragedy. 

Even if, in judging of this question, 
we were to regard only those proofs to 
which we have been referred, we shall 
jirobably come to a conclusion somewhat 
different from that which has been 
drawn. Our exports, for examjile, al- 
though certainly less than in some years, 
were not, last year, so much below an 
average formed upon the exports of a 
series of years, and putting those ex- 
ports at a fixed value, as might be sup- 
posed. The value of the exports of 
agricultural products, of animals, of the 



products, of the forest and of the sea, 
together with gunpowder, spirits, and 
sundry imenumerated articles, amounted 
in the several years to the following 
sums, viz. : — 

In 1790, $27,710,152 

1804, :W,842,:ilG 

1807, 38,405,8.54 

Coming up now to our own times, 
and taking the exports of the years 1821, 
1822, and 1823, of the same articles and 
products, at the same prices, they stand 
thus: — 

In 1821, 845,043,175 

1822, 48,782,205 

1823, 55,803,491 

l\Ir. Speaker has taken the very ex- 
traordinary year of 1803, and, adding to 
the exportation of that year what he 
thinks ought to have been a just aug- 
mentation, in proportion to the increase 
of our population, he sw^ells the result 
to a magnitude, which, when compared 
with our actual exports, would exhibit 
a great deficiency. But is there any 
justice in this mode of calculation? In 
the first place, as before observed, the 
year 180.3 was a year of extraordinary 
exportation. By reference to the ac- 
counts, that of the article of flour, for 
example, there was an export that year 
of thirteen hundred thousand barrels; 
but the veiy next year it fell to eight 
hundred thousand, and the next year to 
seven hundred thousand. In the next 
place, there never was any reason to 
expect that the increase of our exports 
of agricultural products would keep 
pace with the increase of our popula- 
tion. That would be against all experi- 
ence. It is, indeed, most desirable, tiiat 
there should be an augmented demand 
for the products of agriculture; but, 
nevertheless, the official returns of our 
exports do not show that absolutt^ want 
of all foreign market which has been so 
strongly stated. 

But there are other means by which 
to judge of the general condition of the 
people. The quantity of the means of 
subsistence consumed, or, to make use 
of a phraseology better suited to the 



80 



THE TARIFF. 



condition of our own people, the quan- 
tity of the comforts of life enjoyed, 
is one of those means. It so hap- 
pens, indeed, that it is not so easy in 
this country as elsewhere to ascertain 
facts of this sort with accuracy. Where 
most of the articles of subsistence and 
most of the comforts of life are taxed, 
there is, of course, great facility in 
ascertaining, from official statements, 
the amount of consumption. But in 
this country, most fortunately, the gov- 
ernment neither knows, nor is concerned 
to know, the annual consumption; and 
estimates can only be formed in another 
mode, and in reference only to a few 
articles. Of these articles, tea is one. 
It is not quite a luxury, and yet is some- 
thing above the absolute necessaries of 
life. Its consumption, therefore, will 
be diminished in times of adversity, and 
augmented in times of prosperity. By 
deducting the annual export from the 
annual import, and taking a number of 
years together, we may arrive at a prob- 
able estimate of consumption. The aver- 
age of eleven years, from 1790 to 1800, 
inclusive, will be found to be two mil- 
lions and a half of pounds. From 1801 
to 1812, inclusive, the average was three 
millions seven hundred thousand; and 
the average of the last three years, to 
wit, 1821, 1822, and 1823, was five 
millions and a half. Having made a 
just allowance for the increase of our 
numbers, we shall still find, I think, 
from these statements, that there is no 
distress which has limited our means of 
subsistence and enjoyment. 

In forming an opinion of the degree 
of general prosperity, we may regard, 
likewise, the progress of internal im- 
provements, the investment of capital 
in roads, bridges, and canals. All these 
prove a balance of income over expendi- 
ture; they afford evidence that there is 
a surplus of profits, which the present 
generation is usefully vesting for the 
benefit of the next. It cannot be denied, 
that, in this particular, the progress of 
the country is steady and rapid. 

We may look, too, to the sums ex- 
pended for education. Are our colleges 
deserted? Do fathers find themselves 



less able than usual to educate their 
children? It will be found, I imagine, 
that the amount paid for the purpose of 
education is constantly increasing, and 
that the schools and colleges were never 
more full than at the present moment. I 
may add, that the endowment of public 
charities, the contributions to objects of 
general benevolence, whether foreign or 
domestic, the munificence of individuals 
towards whatever promises to benefit 
the community, are all so many proofs 
of national prosperity. And, finally, 
there is no defalcation of revenue, no 
pressure of taxation. 

The general result, therefore, of a fair 
examination of the present condition of 
things, seems to me to be, that there is 
a considerable depression of prices, and 
curtailment of profit ; and in some parts 
of the country, it must be admitted, 
there is a gTeat degree of pecuniary 
embarrassment, arising from the diffi- 
culty of paying debts which were con- 
tracted when prices were high. With 
these qualifications, the general state of 
the country may be said to be prosper- 
ous ; and these are not sufficient to give 
to the whole face of affairs any appear- 
ance of general distress. / 

Supposing the evil, then, to be a de- 
pression of prices, and a partial pecuni- 
ary pressure, the next inquiry is into 
the causes of that evil; and it appears 
to me that there are several ; and in this 
respect, I think, too much has been im- 
puted by IMr. Speaker to the single cause 
of the diminution of exports. Con- 
nected, as we are, with all the commer- 
cial nations of the world, and having 
observed great changes to take place 
elsewhere, we should consider whether 
the causes of those changes have-not 
reached us, and whether we are not 
suffering by the operation of them, in 
common with others. Undoubtedly, 
there has been a great fall in the price 
of all commodities throughout the com- 
mercial world, in consequence of the 
restoration of a state of peace. When 
the Allies entered France in 1814, prices 
rose astonishingly fast, and very high. 
Colonial produce, for instance, in the 
ports of this country, as weU as else- 



THE TARIFF. 



81 



where, sprung up suddenly from the 
lowest to the highest extreme. A new 
and vast demand was created for the 
commodities of trade. These were the 
natural consequences of the great politi- 
cal changes wliioh then took place in 
Europe. 

We are to consider, too, that our own 
war created new demand, and that a 
government expenditure of twenty-five 
or thirty million dollai's a year had the 
usual effect of enhancing prices. We 
are obliged to add, that the paper issues 
of our banks carried the same effect 
still further. A depreciated currency 
existed in a great part of the country; 
depreciated to such an extent, that, at 
one time, exchange between the centre 
and the North was as high as t\\enty 
per cent. The Bank of the United 
States was instituted to correct this 
evil; but, for causes which it is not 
necessary now to enimierate, it did not 
for some years bring back the currency 
of the country to a sound state. This 
depreciation of the circulating currency 
was so much, of course, added to the 
nominal prices of commodities, and 
tliese prices, thus unnaturally high, 
seemed, to those who looked only at 
the appearance, to indicate great pros- 
perity. But such prosperity is more 
specious than real. It would have been 
better, probably, as the shock would 
have been less, if prices had fallen 
sooner. At length, however, they fell; 
and as there is little doubt that certain 
events in Europe had an influence in 
determining the time at which this fall 
took place, I will advert shortly to some 
of the principal of those events. 

In May, 1819, the British House of 
Commons decided, by a unanimous vote, 
that the resumption of cash payments 
by the Bank of England should not 
be deferred beyond the ensuing Febru- 
ary. The restriction had been contin- 
ued from time to time, and from year 
to year. Parliament always professing 
to look to the restoration of a sp(!cie 
currency whenever it should be found 
practicable. Having been, in July, 1818, 
continued to July, 1819, it was under- 
stood that, in the interim, the impor- 



tant question of the time at which cash 
payments should be resumed should be 
linally settled. In the latter part of the 
year 1818, the circulation of the bank 
had been greatly reduced, and a severe 
scarcity of money was felt in the Lon- 
don market. Such was the state of 
things in England. On the Continent, 
other important events took place. The 
French Indemnity Loan had been ne- 
gotiated in the sumnier of 1818, and the 
proportion of it belonging to Austfia, 
Russia, and Prussia had been sold. This 
created an unusual demand for gold and 
silver in those countries. Jt has been 
stated, that the amount of the precious 
metals transmitted to Austria and Ilu.s- 
sia in that year was at least twenty mil- 
lions sterling. Other large sums were 
sent to Prussia and to Denmaik. The 
effect of this sudden drain of specie, 
felt first at Paris, was communicated 
to Amsterdam and Hamburg, and all 
other commercial places in the North 
of Europe. 

The paper system of England had cer- 
tainly communicated an artificial value 
to property. It had encouraged .specu- 
lation, and excited over-trading. When 
the shock therefore came, and this vio- 
lent pressure for money acted at the 
same moment on the Continent and in 
England, inflated and unnatural prices 
could be kept up no longer. A reduc- 
tion took place, which has been esti- 
mated to liave been at least equal to a 
fall of thirty, if not forty per cent. The 
depression was universal ; and the change 
was felt in the United States severely, 
though not equally so in every part. 
There are those, I am aware, who main- 
tain that the events to wliich 1 liave al- 
luded did not cause the groat fall of 
prices, but that that fall was natural and 
inevitable, from the previously exi.sting 
state of things, the abundance of (com- 
modities, and the want of demand. But 
that would only prove -that the effect 
was produced in another way, rather 
than by another cau.se. If these groat 
and sudden calls for money did not re- 
duce prices, but prices fell, as of them- 
selves, to their natural state, still the re- 
sult is the same; for we perceive that, 



82 



THE TARIFF. 



after these new calls for money, prices 
could not be kept longer at their un- 
natural height. 

About the time of these foreign events, 
our own bank system underwent a 
change ; and all these causes, in my 
view of the subject, concurred to pro- 
duce the great shock which took place 
in our commercial cities, and in many 
parts of the country. The year 1819 
was a year of numei-ous failures, and 
very considerable distress, and would 
have furnished far better grounds than 
exist at present for that gloomy repre- 
sentation of our condition which has 
been presented. Mr. Speaker has al- 
luded to the strong inclination which 
exists, or has existed, in various parts 
of the country, to issue paper money, 
as a proof of great existing difficulties. 
I regard it rather as a very productive 
cause of those difficulties; and the com- 
mittee will not fail to observe, that there 
is, at this moment, much the loiidest 
complaint of distress precisely whei'e 
there has been the greatest attempt to 
relieve it by systems of paper credit. 
And, on the other hand, content, pros- 
perity, and happiness are most observa- 
ble in those parts of the country where 
there has been the least endeavor to ad- 
minister relief by law. In truth, noth- 
ing is so baneful, so utterly ruinous to 
all true industry, as interfering with the 
legal value of money, or attempting to 
raise artificial standards to supply its 
place. Such remedies suit well the spirit 
of extravagant speculation, but they sap 
the very foundation of all honest acqui- 
sition. By weakening the security of 
property, they take away all motive for 
exertion. Their effect is to transfer 
property. Whenever a debt is allowed 
to be paid by any thing less valuable 
than the legal currency in respect to 
which it was contracted, the difference 
between the value of the paper given in 
payment and the legal currency is pre- 
cisely so much property taken from one 
man and given to another, by legislative 

- enactment. 

'"^ When we talk, therefore, of protect- 
ing industry, let us remember that the 
first measure for that end is to secure it 



in its eai-nings; to assure it that it shall 
receive its own. '. Before we invent new 
modes of raising prices, let us take care 
that existing prices are not rendered 
wholly unavailable, by making them 
capable of being paid in depreciated 
paper. I regard. Sir, this issue of ir- 
redeemable paper as the most prominent 
and deplorable cause of whatever press- 
ure still exists in the country ; and, 
further, I would put the question to the 
members of this committee, whether it 
is not from that part of the people who 
have tried tliis paper system, and tried 
it to their cost, that this bill receives 
the most earnest support? And I can- 
not forbear to ask, further, whether this 
support does not proceed rather from a 
general feeling of uneasiness under the 
present condition of things, than from 
the clear perception of any benefit which 
the measure itself can confer? Is not 
all expectation of advantage centred in 
a sort of vague hope, that change may 
produce relief ? Debt certainly presses 
hardest where pi-ices have been longest 
kept up by artificial means. They find 
the shock lightest who take it soonest; 
and I fully believe that, if those parts of 
the country which now suffer most had 
not augmented the force of the blow by 
deferring it, they would have now been 
in a much better condition than they 
are. We may assure ourselves, once for 
all. Sir, that there can be no such thing 
as payment of debts by legislation. We 
may abolish debts indeed; we may trans- 
fer property by visionary and violent 
laws. But we deceive both ourselves 
and our constituents, if we flatter either 
ourselves or them with the hope that 
there is any relief against whatever 
pressure exists, but in economy and in- 
dustry. The depression of prices and 
the stagnation of business have been 
in truth the necessary result of cir- 
cumstances. No government could pre- 
vent them, and no government can al- 
together relieve tiie people from their 
effect. We have enjoyed a day of ex- 
traordinary prosperity; we had been 
neutral while the world was at war, and 
had found a great demand for our prod- 
ucts, our navigation, and our labor. We 



THE TARIFF. 



83 



had no right to expect that that state of 
things would continue always. With the 
return of peace, foreign nations would 
struggle for themselves, and enter into 
competition with us in the great objects 
of pursuit. 

Now, ISir, what is the remedy for 
existing evils ? \Vhat is the course of 
policy suited to our actual condition? 
Certainly it is not our wisdom to adopt 
any system tliat may be offered to us, 
without examination, and in tlie blind 
hope that whatever cheiiges our con- 
dition may improve it. It is belter that 
we should 

"bear those ills we have. 
Than fly to others that we know not of." 

^ye are bound to see that there is a fit- 
ness and an aptitude in whatever meas- 
ures may be reconnuended to relieve the 
evils that afflict us; and before we adopt 
a system that professes to make great 
alterations, it is our duty to look care- 
fully to each leading interest of the com- 
munity, and see how it may probably be 
affected by our proposed legislation. 

And, in the first place, what is the 
condition of our commerce? Here we 
must clearly perceive, that it is not en- 
joying that rich harvest which fell to its 
fortune during the continuance of the 
European wars. It has been greatly 
depressed, and limited to small profits. 
Still, it is elastic and active, and seems 
capable of recovering itself in some 
measure from its depression. The ship- 
ping interest, also, has suffered severely, 
still more severely, probably, than com- 
merce. If any thing should strike us 
with astonishment, it is that the navi- 
gation of the United States should be 
able to sustain itself. "Without any gov- 
erinnent protection whatever, it goes 
abroad to challenge competition with 
the whole world; and, in spite of all ob- 
stacles, it has yet l)een able to maintain 
eisrht huiulred thousand tons in the em- 
ployment of foreign trade-VQlIow, Sir, 
, do the ship-owners and navigators ac- 
f complish this '^i How is it that they are 
able to meet, and in some measure over- 
come, universal competition ? It is not. 
Sir, by protection and bounties; but by 



unwearied exertion, by extreme econ- 
omy, by unshaken perseverance, by that 
manly and resolute spirit' which relies 
on itself to protect itself. These causes 
alone enable American ships still to keep 
their element, and show the flag of their 
country in distant seas. The rates of 
insurance may teach us how thoroughly 
our ships are built, and how skilfully 
and safely they are navigated. llisk.s 
are taken, as I learn, from the United 
States to Liverpool, at one per cent; 
and from the United States to C'anton 
and back, as low as three per cent. But 
when we look to the low rate of freight, 
and when we consider, also, that the 
articles entering into the composition of 
a ship, with the exception of wood, are 
dearer here than in other countries, we 
cannot but be utterly surprised that the 
shipping interest has been able to sus- 
tain itself at all. I need not say that the 
navigation of the country is essential to 
its honor and its defence. Yet, instead 
of proposing benefits for it in this hour 
of its depression, we threaten by this 
measure to lay upon it new and heavy 
burdens. In the discussion, the other 
day, of that provision of the bill which 
proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of 
the oil-merchants and whalemen, we had 
the pleasure of hearing eloquent eulo- 
giums upon that portion of our shipping 
employed in the whale-fishery, and strong 
statements of its importance to the pub- 
lic interest. But the same bill proposes 
a severe tax upon tliat interest, for the 
benefit of' the iron-manufacturer and the 
hemp-grower. So that the tallow-chand- 
lers and soapboilers are sacrificed to the 
oil-merchants, in order that these again 
may contribute to the manufacturers of 

iron and the growers of hemp. 

If such be the state of our commerce 
and navigation, what is the condition of 
our home manufactures? How are they 
amidst the general dejiression? Do they 
need further protection? and if any, 
how much? On all these points, we 
have had much general stat^^ment, but 
little precise inforniation. In the very 
elaborate si>eedi of Mr. Speaker, we are 
not suiiplied with satisfactory grounds 
of judging with respect to these various 



84 



THE TARIFF. 



\ 



])articulars. Who can tell, from any 
thing yet before the committee, whether 
the proposed duty be too high or too 
low on any one article? 'Gentlemen tell 
us, that they are in favor of domestic 
industry ; so am I. ■" They would give it 
protection; so would I. But then all 
domestic industry is not confined to 
manufactures. The employments of 
agriculture, commerce, and navigation 
are all branches of the same domestic 
industry; they all furnish employment 
for American capital and American 
labor. And when the question is, 
"whether new duties shall be laid, for 
the pm-pose of giving further encourage- 
ment to particular manufactm-es, every 
reasonable man must ask himself, both 
whether the proposed new encourage- 
ment be necessary, and whether it can 
be given without injustice to other 
branches of industry. Y ';. . 

It is desirable to know, also, some- 
what more distinctly, how the proposed 
means will produce the intended effect. 
One great object proposed, for example, 
is the increase of the home market for 
the consumption of agricultural prod- 
ucts. This certainly is much to be 
desh'ed ; but what provisions of the bill 
are expected wholly or 2>rincipally to 
produce this, is not stated. I would not 
deny that some increase of the home 
mai'ket may follow, from the adojjtion 
of this bill, but all its provisions have 
not an equal tendency to produce this 
effect. Those manufactures which em- 
ploy most labor, create, of course, most 
demand for articles of consumption; 
and those create least in the production 
of which capital and skill enter as the 
chief ingredients of cost. I cannot, Sir, 
take this bill merely because a com- 
mittee has recommended it. I cannot 
espouse a side, and fight under a flag. 
I wholly repel the idea that we must 
take this law, or pass no law on the 
subject. Wliat should hinder us from 
exercising our own judgments upon 
these provisions, singly and severally? 
"Who has the power to place us, or why 
should we place ourselves, in a condition 
where we cannot give to every measure, 
that is distinct and separate in itself, 



a separate and distinct consideration? 
Sir, I presume no member of the com- 
mittee will withhold his assent from 
what he thinks right, mitil others will 
yield their assent to what they think 
wrong. There are many things in this 
bill acceptable, probably, to the general 
sense of the House. Why should not 
these provisions be passed into a law, 
and others left to be decided upon their 
ow^l merits, as a majority of the House 
shall see fit? To some of these pro- 
visions I am fnyself decidedly favora- 
ble; to others I have great objections; 
and I should have been very glad of an 
opportunity of giving my own vote dis- 
tinctly on propositions which are, in 
their own natm'e, essentially and sub- 
stantially distinct from one another. 

But, Sir, before expressing my own 
opinion upon the several provisions of 
this bill, I will advert for a moment to 
some other general topics. We have 
heard much of the policy of England, 
and her example has been repeatedly 
urged upon us, as proving, not only the 
expediency of encouragement and pro- 
tection, but of exclusion and direct 
prohibition also. I took occasion the 
other day to remark, that more liberal 
notions were becoming prevalent on this 
subject; that the policy of restraints and 
prohibitions was getting out of repute, 
as the true nature of commerce became 
better understood; and that, among 
public men, those most distinguished 
were most decided in their reprobation 
of the broad principle of exclusion and 
prohibition. Upon the truth of this 
representation, as matter of fact, I sup- 
posed there could not be two opinions 
among those who had observed the 
progress of political sentiment in other 
countries, and were acquainted with its 
present state. In this respect, however, 
it would seem that I was greatly mis- 
taken: We have heard it again and 
again declared, that the English govern- 
ment still adheres, with immovable firm- 
ness, to its old doctrines of prohibition; 
that although journalists, theorists, and 
scientific writers advance other doc- 
trines, yet the practical men, the legis- 
lators, the government of the country, 



THE TARIFF. 



85 



are too wise to follow them. It has 
even been most sagaciously hinted, that 
the promulgation of liberal opinions on 
tliese subjects is intended only to delude 
other governments, to cajole them into 
the folly of liberal ide;us, while England 
retains to herself all the benefits of the 
admirable old syst<?m of prohibition. 
We have heard from Mr. Speaker a 
warm commendation of the complex 
mechanism of this system. The British 
empire, it is said, is, in the first place, 
to be protected against the rest of the 
woi'ld; then the British Isles against 
the colonies; next, the isles respectively 
against each other, England herself, as 
the heart of the emi)ire, being protected 
most of all, and against all. 

Truly, Sir, it appears to me that Mr. 
Speaker's imagination has seen system, 
and order, and beauty, in that which is 
much more justly considered as the 
result of ignorance, partialitj^ or vio- 
lence. This part of English legislation 
has resulted, partly from considering 
Ireland as a conquered countiy, partly 
from the want of a complete union, even 
with Scotland, and partly from the 
narrow views of colonial regulation, 
which in early and uninformed periods 
influenced the European states. 

Nothing, J imagine, would strike the 
public men of England more singularly, 
than to find gentlemen of real informa- 
tion and nuich weight in the councils of 
this countiy expressing sentiments like 
these, in regard to the existing state of 
these English laws. I have never said, 
indeed, that prohibitory laws do not 
exist in England ; we all know they do ; 
but the question is. Does she owe her 
prosperity and gTeatness to these laws? 
I venture to say, that such is not the 
opinion of public men now in England, 
and the continuance of the laws, even 
without any alteration, would not be 
evidence that their opinion is different 
from what I have represented it; be- 
cause the laws having existed long, and 
great interests having been built up on 
the faith of them, they cannot now be 
repealed without great and overwhelm- 
ing inconvenience. Because a thing 
has been wrongly done, it does not 



therefore follow that it can now be 
undone; and this is the reason, as I 
understand it, for which exclusion, pro- 
hibition, and monopoly are suifered to 
remain in any degree in the English 
system; and for the same reason, it will 
be wise in us to take our measures, ou 
all subjects of this kind, with great 
caution. We may not be able, but at 
the hazard of much injury to individuals, 
hereafter to retrace our steps. And yet, 
whatever is extravagant or unreasonable 
is not likely to endure. There may 
come a moment of strong reaction ; and 
if no moderation be shown in laying on 
duties, there may be as little scruple in 
taking them off. 

It may be here observed, that there is 
a broad and marked distinction between 
entire prohibition and reasonable encour- 
agement. It is one thing, by duties or 
taxes on foreign articles, to awaken a 
home competition in the production of 
the same articles ; it is another thing to 
remove all competition by a total ex- 
clusion of the foreign article ; and it is 
quite another thing still, by total pro- 
hibition, to raise up at home manufac- 
tiu-es not suited to the climate, the 
nature of the countiy, or the state of 
the population."^ These are substantial - 
distinctions, and although it may not 
be easy in every case to determine 
which of them applies to a given article, 
yet the distinctions themselves exist, 
and in most cases will be sufficiently 
clear to indicate fhe true course of 
policy; and, miless I have greatly mis- 
taken the prevailing sentiment in the 
councils of England, it grows every 
day more and more favorable to the 
diminution of resti-ictions, and to the 
wisdom of leaving much (I do not say 
every thing, for that would not l>e true) 
to tlie enterprise and tlie discretion of 
individuals. I should certainly not 
have taken up the time of the committt'e 
to state at any length the opinions of 
other governments, or of the public men 
of other countries, upon a subject like 
this; but an occasional remark made 
by me the other day, having been so 
directly controverted, esjiecially by Mr. 
Speaker, in his observations yesterday. 



86 



THE TARIFF. 



I must take occasion to refer to some 
proofs of what I have stated. 

What, then, is the state of English 
opinion? Everybody knows that, after 
the termination of the late European 
war, there came a time of great press- 
ure in England. Since her example has 
been quoted, let it be asked in what 
mode her government sought relief. 
Did it aim to maintain artificial and 
unnatural prices ? Did it maintain a 
swollen and extravagant paper circula- 
tion? Did it carry further the laws of 
prohibition and exclusion ? Did it 
draw closer the cords of colonial re- 
straint ? No, Sir, but precisely the 
reverse. Instead of relying on legisla- 
tive contrivances and artificial devices, 
it trusted to the enterprise and industry 
of the people, which it sedulously sought 
to excite, not by imposing restraint, but 
by removing it, wherever its removal 
was practicable. In May, 1820, the at- 
tention of the government having been 
much turned to the state of foreign 
trade, a distinguished member ^ of the 
House of Peers brought forward a Par- 
liamentary motion upon that subject, 
followed by an ample discussion and a 
full statement of his own opinions. In 
the course of his remarks, he observed, 
" that there ought to be no prohibitory 
duties as such ; for that it was evident, 
that, where a manufacture could not be 
cari'ied on, or a production raised, but 
nnder the protection of a prohibitory 
duty, that manufacture, or that prod- 
uce, could not be brought to market 
but at a loss. In his opinion, the name 
of strict prohibition might, therefore, 
in commerce, be got rid of altogether ; 
but he did not see the same objection to 
protecting duties, which, while they 
admitted of the introduction of com- 
modities from abroad similar to those 
which we ourselves manufactured, 
placed them so much on a level as to 
allow a competition between them." 
"No axiom," he added, "was more 
true than this: that it was by growing 
what the territory of a country could 
grow most cheaplj', and by receiving 

1 Lord Lansdowne. 



from other countries what it could not 
produce except at too great an expense, 
that the greatest degree of happiness 
was to be connnunicated to the greatest 
extent of population." 

In assenting to the motion, the first 
minister ^ of the crown expressed his 
own opinion of the great advantage re- 
sulting from unrestricted freedom of 
trade. " Of the soundness of that gen- 
eral principle," he observed, " I can 
entertain no doubt. I can entertain no 
doubt of what would have been the 
great advantages to the civilized world, 
if the system of unrestricted trade had 
been acted upon by every nation from 
the earliest period of its commercial in- 
tercourse with its neighbors. If to 
those advantages there could have been 
any exceptions, I am persuaded that 
they would have been but few; and I 
am also persuaded that the cases to 
which they would have referred would | 
not have been, in themselves, con- ! 
nected with the trade and commerce ' 
of England. But we are now in a 
situation in which, I will not say that 
a reference to the principle of un- 
restricted trade can be of no use, 
because such a reference may correct 
erroneous reasoning, but in which it is 
impossible for us, or for any country 
in the world but the United States of 
America, to act unreservedly on that 
principle. The commercial regulations 
of the European world have been long 
established, and cannot suddenly be 
departed from." Having supposed a 
proposition to be made to England by a 
foreign state for free commerce and in- 
tercourse, and an unrestricted exchange 
of agricultural products and of manu- 
factures, he proceeds to observe: "It 
would be impossible to accede to such a 
proposition. We have risen to our pres- 
ent greatness under a different system. 
Some suppose that we have risen in 
consequence of that system; others, of 
whom I am one, believe that tve have risen 
in spite of that si/stem. , But, whichever of/ 
these hypotheses be true, certain it is 
that we have risen under a very dilfer- 

2 Lord LiverpooL 



THE TARIFF. 



87- 



ent system than that of free and unre- 
stricted trade. It is utterly impossible, 
with our deltt and taxation, even if they 
were but half their existing amount, 
that we can suddenly adopt the system 
of free trade." 

Lord Ellenborough, in the same de- 
bate, said, " that he attributed the gen- 
eral distress then existing in Europe to 
the regulations that had taken place 
since the destruction of the French 
power. Most of the states on the Con- 
tinent liad surrounded themselves as 
with walls of brass, to inhibit inter- 
course with other states. Intercourse 
was prohibited, even in districts of the 
same state, as was the case in Austria 
and Sardinia. Thus, though the taxes 
on the people had been lightened, the 
severity of their condition had been in- 
creased. He believed that the discon- 
tent which pervaded most parts of 
Europe, and especially Germany, was 
more owing to commercial restrictions 
than to any theoretical doctrines on gov- 
ernment; and that a free communica- 
tion among them would do more to 
restore tranquillity, than any other step 
that could be adopted. He objected to 
all attempts to frustrate the benevolent 
intentions of Providence, which had 
given to various countries various wants, 
in order to bring them together. He 
objected to it as anti-social; he objected 
to it as making commerce the means of 
barbarizing instead of enlightening na- 
tions. The state of the trade with 
France was most disgraceful to both 
countries ; the two greatest civilized na- 
tions of the world, placed at a distance 
of scarcely twenty miles from each 
other, had contrived, by their artificial 
regulations, to reduce their connnerce 
wdth each other to a mere nullity." 
Every member speaking on this occa- 
sion agreed in the general sentiments 
favorable to unrestricted intercourse, 
which had thus been advanced; one of 
them remarking, at the conclusion of 
the debate, that " the principles of free 
trade, which he was happy to see so 
fully recognized, were of the utmost 
consequence; for, though, in the pres- 
ent circumstances of the country, a free 



trade was unattainable, yet their task 
hereafter was to approximate to it- 
Considering the prejudices and in- 
terests which were opposed to tlie recog- 
nition of that principle, it was no small 
iiulication of the firmness and lil)eral- 
ity of government to have so fully con- 
ceded it." 

Sir, we have seen, in the course of 
this discussion, that several gentlemen 
have expressed their higli admiration of 
the silk manufacture of England. Its 
commendation was begun, 1 think, by 
the honorable member from Vermont, 
who sits near me, who thinks that that 
alone gives conclusive evidence of the 
benefits produced by attention to manu- 
factures, inasmuch as it is a great source 
of wealth to the nation, and has amply 
repaid all the cost of its protection. 
Mr. Speaker's approbation of this part 
of the English example was still warmer. 
Xow, Sir, it does so happen, that both 
these gentlemen differ very widely on 
this point from the opinions entertained 
in England, by persons of the first rank, 
both as to knowledge and power. In 
the debate to which I have already 
referred, the proposer of the motion 
urged the expediency of providing for 
the admission of the silks of France 
into England. "He was aware," he 
said, " that there was a poor and in- 
dustrious body of manufacturers, whose 
interests mast suffer by such an ar- 
rangement; and therefore he felt that 
it would be the duty of Parliament to 
provide for the present generation by a 
large Parliamentary grant. It was con- 
formable to every principle of sound 
justice to do so, when the interests of a 
particular class were sacrificed to the 
good of the whole." In answer to 
these observations. Lord Liver})ool said 
that, with reference to several brandies 
of manufactures, time, and the change 
of circumstances, had rendered the .sys- 
tem of protecting duties merely nom- 
inal; and that, in his opinion, if all the 
protecting laws w hich regarded both the 
woollen and cotton numufactures were 
to be repealed, no injurious effects 
would tiiereby be occasioned. " But," 
he observes, " with respect to silk, that 



88 



THE TAHIFF. 



manufacture in this kingdom is so com- 
pletely artificial, that any attempt to 
introduce the principles of free trade 
with reference to it might put an end 
to it altogether. I allow that the silk 
manufacture is not natural to this coun- 
try. / loLsk loe had never had a silk 
manufactory. I allow that it is natural 
to France; I allow that it might have 
been better, had each country adhered 
exclusively to that manufacture in 
which each is superior; and had the 
silks of France been exchanged for 
British cottons. But I must look at 
things as they are ; and when I consider 
the extent of capital, and the immense 
population, consisting, I believe, of 
about fifty thousand persons, engaged 
in our silk manufacture, I can only say, 
that one of the few points in which I 
totally disagree with the proposer of the 
motion is the expediency, under exist- 
ing circumstances, of holding out any 
idea that it would be possible to re- 
linquish the silk manufacture, and to 
provide for those who live by it, by 
Parliamentary enactment. Whatever 
objections there may be to the continu- 
ance of the protecting system, I repeat, 
that it is impossible altogether to relin- 
quish it. I may regret that the system 
was ever commenced; but as I cannot 
recall that act, I must submit to the in- 
convenience by which it is attended, 
i-ather than expose the country to evils 
of greater magnitude." Let it be re- 
membered. Sir, that these are not the 
sentiments of a theorist, nor the fancies 
of speculation ; but the operative opin- 
ions of the first minister of England, 
acknowledged to be one of the ablest 
and most practical statesmen of his 
country. 

Gentlemen could have hardly l^een 
more unfortunate than in the selection 
of the silk manufacture in England as 
an example of the beneficial effects of 
that system which they would recom- 
mend. It is, in the language which I 
have quoted, completely artificial. It 
has been sustained by I know not how 
many laws, breaking in upon the plain- 
est principles of general expediency. 
At the last session of Parliament, the 



manufacturers petitioned for the repeal 
of three or four of these statutes, com- 
plaining of the vexatious restrictions 
which they impose on the wages of 
labor; setting forth, that a great variety 
of orders has from time to time been 
issued by magistrates under the au- 
thority of these laws, interfering in an 
oppressive manner with the minutest 
details of the manufacture, — such as 
limiting the number of threads to an 
inch, restricting the widths of many 
sorts of work, and determining the 
quantity of labor not to be exceeded 
without extra wages ; that by the oper- 
ation of these laws, the rate of wages, 
instead of being left to the recognized 
principles of regulation, has been arbi- 
trarily fixed by persons wdiose ignorance 
renders them incompetent to a just de- 
cision; that masters are compelled by 
law to pay an equal price for all work, 
whether well or ill performed ; and that 
they are wholly prevented from using 
improved machinery, it being ordered, 
that work, in the weaving of which 
machinery is employed, shall be paid 
precisely at the same rate as if done by 
hand; that these acts have frequently 
given rise to the most vexatious regula- 
tions, the unintentional breach of which 
has subjected manufacturers to ruinous 
penalties; and that the introduction of 
all machinery being prevented, by which 
labor might be cheapened, and the manu- 
facturers being compelled to j)ay at a 
fixed price, under all circumstances, 
they are unable to afford employment 
to their workmen, in times of stagnation 
of trade, and are compelled to stop their 
looms. And finally, they complain that, 
notwithstanding these gi'ievances under 
which they labor, while carrying on their 
manufacture in London, the law still 
prohibits them, while they continue to 
reside there, from employing any portion 
of their capital in the same business in 
any other part of the kingdom, where it 
might be more beneficially conducted. 
Now, Su-, absurd as these laws must 
appear to be to every man, the attempt 
to repeal them did not, as far as I recol- 
lect, altogether succeed. The weavers 
were too numerous, their interests too 



THE TARIFF. 



89 



g^eat, or their prejudices too sti'ong; 
and this notable instance of protection 
and monopoly still exists, to be lamented 
in J]nghuul with as much sincerity as it 
seems to be admired here. 

In order further to show the prevail- 
ing sentiment of the English govern- 
ment, I would refer to a report of a 
select committee of the House of Com- 
mons, at the head of which was the 
Vice-President of the Board of Trade 
(Mr. Wallace), in July, 1820. "The 
time," say that committee, " when 
monopolies could be successfully sup- 
ported, or would be patiently endured, 
either in respect to subjects against sub- 
jects, or particular countries against the 
rest of the world, seems to have passed 
away. Commerce, to continue undis- 
turbed and secure, must be, as it was 
intended to be, a source of reciprocal 
amity between nations, and an inter- 
change of productions to promote the 
industry, the wealth, and the happiness 
of mankind." In moving for the re- 
appointment of the committee in Feb- 
ruary, 1823, the same gentleman said: 
" We must also get rid of that feeling 
of appropriation which exhibited itself 
in a disposition to produce every thing 
necessary for our own consumption, and 
to render ourselves independent of the 
world. No notion could be more absurd 
or mischievous ; it led, even in peace, to 
an animosity and rancor greater than 
existed in time of war. Undoubtedly 
there would be great prejudices to com- 
bat, both in this country and elsewhere, 
in the attempt to remove the difficulties 
which are most obnoxious. It would 
be impossible to forget the attention 
which was in some respects due to the 
jjresent system of protections, although 
that attention ought certainly not to be 
carried beyond tiie absolute necessity of 
the case." And in a second report of 
the committee, drawn by the same 
gentleman, in that part of it which pro- 
poses a diminution of duties on timber 
from the North of Europe, and the 
policy of giving a legislative preference 
to the importation of such timber in the 
log, and a discouragement of the impor- 
tation of deals, it is stated that the com- 



mittee reject this policy, because, among 
other reasons, " it is founded on a prin- 
ciple of exclusion, which they are most 
averse to see brought into operation, in 
any new instance, without the warrant 
of some evident and great political ex- 
pediency." And on many subsequent 
occasions the same gentleman has taken 
occasion to observe, that he differed 
from those who thought tliat manid"ac- 
tures could not flourish without restric- 
tions on trade; that old prejudices of 
that sort were dying away, and that 
more liberal and just sentiments were 
taking theii- place. 

These sentiments appear to have been 
followed by important legal provisions, 
calculated to remove restrictions and 
prohibitions where they were most se- 
verely felt; that is to say, in several 
branches of navigation and trade. They 
have relaxed then* colonial system, they 
have opened the ports of their islands, 
and have done away the restriction which 
limited the trade of the colony to the 
mother country. Colonial products can 
now be carried directly from the islands 
to any part of Europe ; and it may not 
be improbable, considering our ow n high 
duties on spirits, that that article may 
be exchanged hereafter by the English 
West India colonies directly for the tim- 
ber and deals of the Baltic. It may be 
added, that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentle- 
man has cited, says, that nobody sup- 
poses that the three great staples of 
English manufactiu'es, cotton, woollen, 
and hardware, are benefited by any 
existing protecting duties ; and that one 
object of all these protecting laws is 
usually overlooked, and that is, that 
they have been intended to reconcile the 
various interests to taxation; the corn 
law, for example, being designed as 
some equivalent to the agricultural in- 
terest for the burden of tithes and of 
poor-rates. 

In fine. Sir, I think it is clear, that, 
if we now embrace the system of prohi- 
bitions and restrictions, w-e shall siiow 
an affection for what others have dis- 
carded, and be attempting to ornament 
ourselves with cast-off apparel. 

Sir, I should not have gone into this 



90 



THE TARIFF. 



prolix detail of opinions from any con- 
sideration of their special importance on 
the present occasion; but having hap- 
pened to state that such was the actual 
opinion of the government of England 
at the jiresent time, and the accuracy of 
this representation having been so con- 
fidently denied, I have chosen to put the 
matter beyond doubt or cavil, although 
at the expense of these tedious citations. 
I shall haA'e occasion hereafter to refer 
more particularly to sundry recent Brit- 
ish enactments, by way of showing the 
diligence and spirit with which that 
government strives to sustain its navi- 
gating interest, by opening the widest 
possible range to the enterprise of indi- 
vidual adventurers. I repeat, that I 
have not alluded to these examples of a 
foreign state as being fit to control our 
own policy. In the general princij^le, I 
acquiesce. Protection, when carried to 
the point which is now recommended, 
that is, to entire jirohibition, seems to 
me destructive of all commercial inter- 
course between nations. We are urged 
to adopt the system upon general prin- 
ciples; and what would be the conse- 
quence of the universal application of 
such a general p-inciple, but that nations 
would abstain entirely from all inter- 
course with one another? I do not 
admit the general principle ; on the con- 
trary, I think freedom of trade to be the 
general principle, and restriction the 
exception. And it is for every state, 
taking into view its own condition, to 
judge of the propriety, in any case, of 
making an exception, constantly pre- 
ferring, as I think all wise governments 
will, not to depart without urgent reason 
from the general rule. 

There is another point in the existing 
policy of England to which I would 
most earnestly invite the attention of 
the committee; I mean the warehouse 
system, or what we usually call the 
system of drawback. Very great preju- 
dices appear to me to exist with us on 
that subject. We seem averse to the 
extension of the principle. The Eng- 
lish government, on the contrary, appear 
to have carried it to the extreme of lib- 
erality. They have arrived, however, at 



their present opmions and present prac- 
tice by slow degrees. The transit system 
was commenced about the year 1803, 
but the first law was partial and limited. 
It admitted the importation of raw 
materials for exportation, but it ex- 
cluded almost every sort of manufac- 
tured goods. This was done for the 
same reason that we propose to prevent 
the transit of Canadian wheat through 
the United States, the fear of aiding the 
competition of the foreign article with 
our own in foreign markets. Better 
reflection or more experience has in- 
duced them to abandon that mode of 
reasoning, and to consider all such 
means of influencing foreign markets as 
nugatory; since, in the present active 
and enlightened state of the world, 
nations will supply themselves from the 
best sources, and the true policy of all 
producers, whether of raw materials or 
of manufactured articles, is, not vainly 
to endeavor to keep other vendors out of 
the market, but to conquer them in it by 
the quality and the cheapness of their 
articles. The present policy of England, 
therefore, is to allure the importation of 
commodities into England, there to be 
deposited in EnglLsh warehouses, thence 
to be exported in assorted cargoes, and 
thus enabling her to carry on a general 
export trade to all quarters of the globe. 
Articles of all kinds, with the single 
exception of tea, may be brought into 
England, from any part of the world, 
in foreign as well as British ships, there 
warehoused, and again exported, at the 
pleasure of the owner, without the pay- 
ment of any duty or government charge 
whatever. 

While I am upon this subject, I would 
take notice also of the recent proposi- 
tion in the English Parliament to abol- 
ish the tax on imported wool ; and it is 
observable that those who support this 
proposition give the same reasons that 
have been offered here, within the last 
week, against the duty which we propose 
on the same article. They say that their 
manufacturers require a cheap and coarse 
wool, for the supply of the Mediterranean 
and Levant trade, and that, without a 
more free admission of the wool of the 



THE TARIFF. 



91 



Continent, that trade will all fall into the 
hands of the Germans and Italians, who 
will carry it on through Log-horn and 
Trieste. AVhile there is this duty on 
foreign wool to protect the wool- growers 
of England, there is, on the other lumd, 
a prohibition on the exportation of the 
native article in aid of the manufac- 
turers. The opinion seems to be gain- 
ing strength, that the true policy is to 
abolish botli. 

Laws have long existed in England 
pi'eventing the emigration of artisans 
and the exportation of machinery; but 
the policy of these, also, has become 
doubted, and an inquiry has been insti- 
tuted in Parliament into the expediency 
of repealing them. As to the emigra- 
tion of artisans, say those who disapprove 
the laws, if that were desirable, no law 
could effect it ; and as to the exportation 
of machinery, let us make it and export 
it as we would any other commodity. If 
France is determined to spin and weave 
her own cotton, let us, if we may, still 
have the benefit of furnishing the ma- 
chinei-y. 

I have stated these things, Sir, to show 
what seems to be the general tone of 
thinking and reasoning on these subjects 
in that country, the example of which 
has been so much pressed upon us. 
Whether the present policy of England 
be right or wrong, wise or unwise, it 
cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be 
quoted as an authority for carrying fur- 
ther the restrictive and exclusive sys- 
tem, either in regard to manufactures 
or trade. To re-establish a sound cur- 
rency, to meet at once the shock, tre- 
mendous as it was, of the fall of prices, 
to enlarge her capacity for foreign trade, 
to open wide the field of individual en- 
terprise and competition, and to say 
plainly and distinctly that the country 
must relieve itself from the embarrass- 
ments which it felt, by economy, fru- 
gality, and renewed efforts of enterprise, 
— these appear to be the general outline 
of the policy which England has pur- 
sued. 

^Ir. Chairman, I will now proceed to 
say a few words upon a topic, but for 



the introduction of which into this de- 
bate I should not have given the com- 
mittee on this occasion the trouble of 
hearing me. Some days ago, I believe 
it was when we were settling the con- 
troversy between the oil-merchants and 
the tallow-chandlers, the balance of trade 
made its appearance in debate, and I ' 
must confess. Sir, that I spoke of it, or 
rather spoke to it, somewhat freely and 
irreverently. I believe I used the hard 
names which have been imputed to me, 
and I did it simply for the purpose of 
laying the spectre, and driving it back 
to its tomb. Certainly, Sir, when I 
called the old notion on tliis subject 
nonsense, I did not suppose that I should 
oifend any one, unless the dead should 
happen to hear me. All the living gen- 
eration, I took it for granted, would 
think the term very properly applied. 
In this, however, I was mistaken. The 
dead and the living rise up together to 
call me to account, and I must defend 
myself as well as I am able. 

Let us inquire, then. Sir, what is 
meant by an unfavorable balance of 
trade, and what the argument is, drawn 
from that source. By an unfavorable 
balance of trade, I Txnderstaud, is UKjant 
that state of things in which imjiortation 
exceeds exportation. To apply it to our 
own case, if the value of goods imported 
exceed the value of those exported, then 
the balance of trade is said to be against 
us, inasmuch as we have run in debt to 
the amount of this difPerence. There- 
fore it is said, that, if a nation continue 
long in a commerce like this, it must be 
rendered absolutely bankrupt. It is in 
the condition of a man that buys more 
than he sells ; and how can such a traffic 
be maintained without ruin? Now, Sir, 
the whole fallacy of this argument con- 
sists in supposing, that, whenever the 
value of imports exceeds that of ex- 
ports, a debt is necessarily created to 
the extent of the dift'erence, whereas, 
ordinarily, the import is no more than 
the result of the exiwrt, augmentc.l in 
value by the labor of transportation. 
The excess of imports over exports, in 
truth, usually shows the gains, not the 
losses, of trade; or, in a country that 



92 



THE TARIFF. 



not only buys and sells goods, but em- 
ploys ships in carrying goods also, it 
shows the profits of commerce, and the 
earnings of navigation. Nothing is more 
certain than that, in the usual course of 
things, and taking a series of years to- 
gether, the value of our imports is the 
aggregate of our exports and our 
freights. If the value of commodities 
imported in a given instance did not ex- 
ceed the value of the outward cargo, 
with which they were purchased, then it 
would be clear to eveiy man's common 
sense, that the voyage had not been 
profitable. If such commodities fell far 
short in value of the cost of the outward 
cargo, then the voyage would be a very los- 
ing one ; and yet it would present exactly 
that state of things, which, according to 
the notion of a balance of trade, can 
alone indicate a prosperous commerce. 
On the other hand, if the return cargo 
were found to be worth much more than 
the outward cargo, while the merchant, 
having paid for the goods exported, and 
all the expenses of the voyage, finds a 
handsome sum yet in his hands, which 
he calls profits, the balance of trade is 
still against him, and, whatever he may 
think of it, he is in a very bad way. 
Although one individual or all individ- 
uals gain, the nation loses; while all its 
citizens grow rich, the country gi'ows 
poor. This is the doctrine of the bal- 
ance of trade. 

Allow me. Sir, to give an instance 
tending to show how unaccountably in- 
dividuals deceive themselves, and im- 
agine themselves to be somewhat rap- 
idly mending their condition, while they 
ought to be persuaded that, by that in- 
fallible standard, the balance of trade, 
they are on the high road to ruin. Some 
years ago, in better times than the jDres- 
ent, a ship left one of the towns of New 
England with 70,000 specie dollars. She 
proceeded to Mocha, on the Red Sea, and 
there laid out these dollars in coffee, 
drugs, spices, and other articles procured 
in that market. With this new cargo 
she proceeded to Europe ; two thirds of 
it were sold in Holland for $130,000, 
which the ship brought back, and placed 
in the same bank from the vaults of 



which she had taken her original outfit. 
The other third was sent to the ports of 
the Mediterranean, and produced a re- 
turn of f25,000 in specie, and $15,000 in 
Italian merchandise. These simis to- 
gether make $170,000 imported, which 
is $100,000 moi'e than was exported, and 
is therefore proof of an unfavorable bal- 
ance of trade, to that amount, in this 
adventure. We should find no great 
difiiculty. Sir, in paying off our b^^ 
ances, if this were the nature of them 
all. 

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that all 
these obsolete and exploded notions had 
their origin in very mistaken ideas of the 
true nature of commerce. Commerce is 
not a gambling among nations for a 
stake, to be won by some and lost by 
others. It has not the tendency neces- 
sarily to impoverish one of the parties 
to it, while it enriches the other; all 
parties gain, all parties make profits, all 
parties grow rich, by the operations of 
just and liberal commerce. If the world 
had but one clime and but one soil; if 
all men had the same wants and the 
same means, on the spot of their exist- 
ence, to gratify those wants, — then, in- 
deed, what one obtained from the other 
by exchange would injure one party in 
the same degree that it benefited the 
other; then, indeed, there would be some 
foundation for the balance of trade. But 
Providence has disposed our lot much 
more kindly. We inhabit a various 
earth. We have reciprocal wants, and 
reciprocal means for gi-atifying one 
another's wants. This is the true ori- 
gin of commerce, which is nothing more 
than an exchange of equivalents, and, 
from the rude bai-ter of its primitive 
state, to the refined and complex condi- 
tion in which we see it, its j)rinciple is 
uniformly the same, its oidy object being, 
in every stage, to produce that exchange 
of commodities between individuals and 
between nations which shall conduce to 
the advantage and to the happiness of 
both. Commerce between nations has 
the same essential character as com- 
merce between individuals, or between 
parts of the same nation. Cannot two 
individuals make an mterchanee of com- 



THE TARIFF. 



93 



modities which shall prove beneficial to 
both, or in which the balance of trade 
shall be in favor of both? If not, the 
tailor and the shoemaker, the farmer 
and the smith, have hitherto very much 
misunderstood their own interests. And 
with regard to the internal trade of a 
country, in which the same rule would 
apply as between nations, do we ever 
speak of such an intercourse as prejudi- 
cial to one side because it is useful to 
the other? Do we ever hear that, be- 
cause the intercourse between New York 
and Albany is advantageous to one of 
those places, it must therefore be ruin- 
ous to the other? 

May I be allowed, Sir, to read a pas- 
sage on this subject from the obsei^va- 
tions of a gentleman, in my o2">inion one 
of the most clear and sensible writers 
and speakers of the age upon subjects 
of this sort? ^ "There is no political 
(piestion on which the prevalence of false 
principles is so general, as iia what re- 
lates to the nature of commerce and to 
the pretended balance of trade; and 
there are few which have led to a 
greater number of practical mistakes, 
attended with consequences extensively 
prejudicial to the happiness of mankind. 
In this country, our Parliamentary pro- 
ceedings, our public documents, and the 
works of several able and popular writers, 
have combined to propagate the impres- 
sion, that we are indebted for much of 
our riches to what is called the balance 
of ti'ade." "Our true policy w'ould 
surely be to profess, as the object and 
guide of our commercial system, that 
which every man who has studied the 
subject must know to be the true prin- 
ciple of commerce, the interchange of 
reciprocal and equivalent benefit. We 
may rest assured that it is not in the 
nature of commerce to enrich one party 
at the expense of the other. This is a 
purpose at whicli, if it were practicable, 
we ought not to aim; and which, if we 
aimed at, we could not accomplish." 
These remarks, I believe. Sir, were writ- 
ten some ten or twelve years ago. They 
are in perfect accordance with the opin- 

1 Mr. Huskisson, President of the English 
Board of Trade. 



ions advanced in more elaborate treatises, 
and now that the world has returned to 
a state of peace, and commerce hag re- 
sumed its natural channels, and dill'erent 
nations are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, 
their respective portions of it, all see the 
justness of these ideas, — all see, that, 
in this day of knowledge and of peace, 
there can be no commerce between na- 
tions but that which shall benefit all 
who are parties to it. 

If it were necessary, Mr. Chairman, 
I might ask the attention of the com- 
mittee to refer to a document before us, 
on this subject of the balance of trade. 
It will be seen by reference to the ac- 
counts, that, in the course of the last 
year, our total export to Holland ex- 
ceeded two millions and a half ; our total 
import from the same country was but 
seven hundred thousand dollars. Now, 
can any man be wild enough to make 
any inference from this as to the gain or 
loss of our trade with Holland for that 
year? Our trade with Russia for the 
same year produced a balance the other 
way, our import being two millions, and 
our export but half a million. But this 
has no more tendency to show the llus- 
sian trade a losing trade, than the other 
statement has to show that the Dutch 
trade has been a gainful one. Neither 
of them, by itself, proves any thing. 

Springing out of this notion of a 
balance of trade, there is another idea, 
which has been much dwelt upon in the 
course of this debate; that is, that we 
ought not to buy of nations who do not 
buy of us; for example, that the Russian 
trade is a trade disadvantageous to the 
country, and ought to be discouraged, 
because, in the ports of Russia, we buy 
more than we sell. Now allow me to 
observe, in the first place. Sir, that we 
have no account showing how much we 
do sell in the ports of Russia. Our 
orticial returns show us only what is the 
amount of our direct trade with her 
ports. But then we all know that the 
])roceeds of another portion of our ex- 
ports go to the same market, thougli in- 
directly. We send our own products, 
for example, to Cuba, or to Brazil; we 
there exchange them for the sugar aud 



94 



THE TARIFF. 



the coffee of those countries, and these 
articles we carry to St. Petersburg, and 
there sell them. Again ; our exports to 
Holland and Hamburg are connected 
directly or indirectly with our imports 
from Russia. What difference does it 
make, in sense or reason, whether a 
cargo of iron be bought at St. Peters- 
burg, by the exchange of a cargo of 
tobacco, or whether the tobacco has been 
sold on the way, in a better market, in 
a port of Holland, the money remitted 
to England, and the iron paid for by a 
bill on London? There might indeed 
have been an augmented freight, there 
might have been some saving of com- 
missions, if tobacco had been in brisk 
demand in the Russian market. But 
still there is nothing to show that the 
whole voyage may not have been highly 
profitable. That depends upon the origi- 
nal cost of the article here, the amount 
of freight and insurance to Holland, the 
price obtained there, the rate of ex- 
change between Holland and England, 
the expense, then, of proceeding to St. 
Petersburg, the price of iron there, the 
rate of exchange between that place and 
England, the amount of freight and in- 
surance at home, and, finally, the value 
of the iron when brought to our own 
market. These are the calculations 
which determine the fortune of the ad- 
venture ; and nothing can be judged of 
it, one way or the other, by the relative 
state of our imports or exports with 
Holland, England, or Russia. 

I would not be understood to deny, 
that it may often be our interest to cul- 
tivate a trade with countries that require 
most of such commodities as we can 
furnish, and which are capable also of 
diiectly supplying our own wants. This 
is the original and the simplest fornr of 
all commerce, and is no doubt highly 
beneficial. Some countries are so situ- 
ated, that commerce, in this original 
form, or something near it, may be all 
that they can, without considerable in- 
convenience, carry on. Our trade, for 
example, with Madeira and the Western 
Islands has been useful to the country, 
as furnishing a demand for some portion 
of our agricidtural products, which prob- 



ably could not have been bought had we 
not received their products in return. 
Countries situated still farther from the 
great marts and highways of the com- 
mercial world may afford still stronger 
instances of the necessity and utility of 
conducting commerce on the original 
principle of barter, without much assist- 
ance from the operations of credit and 
exchange. All I would be understood 
to say is, that it by no means follows 
that we can carry on nothing but a los- 
ing trade with a country from which we 
receive more of her products than she 
receives of ours. Since I was supposed, 
the other day, in speaking upon this sub- 
ject, to advance opinions which not only 
this country ought to reject, but which 
also other countries, and those the most 
distinguished for skill and success in 
commercial intercom'se, do reject, 1 will 
ask leave to refer again to the discussion 
which I first mentioned in the English 
Parliament, relative to the foreign trade 
of that country. "With regard,'" says 
the mover 1 of the proposition, "to the 
argument employed against renewing 
our intercourse with the North of Eu- 
rope, namely, that those who supplied 
us with timber from that quarter would 
not receive British manufactures in re- 
turn, it appeared to him futile and un- 
grounded. If they did not send direct 
for our manufactures at home, they 
would send for them to Leipsic and 
other fairs of Germany. Were not the 
Russian and Polish merchants purchas- 
ers there to a great amount? But he 
would never admit the principle, that a 
trade was not profitable because we were 
obliged to carry it on with the precious 
metals, or that we ought to renounce it, 
because our manufactures were not re- 
ceived by the foreign nation in return 
for its produce. Whatever we received 
must be paid for in the produce of oiu' 
land and labor, directly or circuitously, 
and he was glad to have the noble 
Earl's 2 marked concurrence in this prin- 
ciple." 

Referring ourselves again. Sir, to the 
analogies of common life, no one would 

1 The Marquess of Lansdowne. 

2 Lord Liverpool. 



THE TARIFF. 



95 



say that a farmer or a mechanic should 
buy only wlicre he can do so by the ex- 
change of his own produce, or of his 
own manufacture. Such exchange may 
be often convenient: and, on the other 
hand, the cash purchase may be often 
more convenient. It is the same in tlie 
intercourse of nations. Indeed, Mr. 
Speaker has placed this argument on 
vei-y clear grounds. It was said, in the 
early part of the debate, that, if we 
cease to im]^ort English cotton fabrics, 
England will no longer continue to pur- 
chase our cotton. To this ^Ir. Speaker 
replied, with great force and justice, 
that, as she must have cotton in large 
quantities, she will buy the article where 
she can find it best and cheapest; and 
that it would l)e quite ridiculous in her, 
mauufactui'ing as she still would be, for 
her own vast consmnptiou and the con- 
sumption of millions in other countries, 
to reject our uplands because we had 
learned to manufacture a part of them 
for ourselves. Would it not be equally 
ridiculous in us, if the commodities of 
Russia were both cheaper and better 
suited to our wants than could be found 
elsewhere, to abstain from commerce vath. 
her, because she will not receive in return 
other commodities which we have to sell, 
but which she has no occasion to buy? 

Intimately connected, Sir, with this 
topic, is another which has been brought 
into the debate ; I mean the evil so much 
complained of, the exportation of specie. 
AVe hear gentlemen imputing the loss of 
market at home to a want of money, and 
this want of money to the exportation of 
the precious metals. We hear the India 
and China trade denounced, as a com- 
merce conducted on our side, in a great 
measure, with gold and silver. These 
opinions. Sir, are clearly void of all just 
foundation, and we cannot too soon get 
rid of them. There are no shallower 
I reasoners than those political and com- 
i mercial writers who would represent it 
I to be the only true and gainful end of 
commerce, to accumulate the precious 
metals. These are articles of use, and 
articles of merchandise, vvith this addi- 
tional circumstance belonging to them, 



that they are made, by the general con- 
sent of nations, the standard by which 
the value of all other merchandise is to 
be estimated. In regard to weights and 
measures, something drawn from exter- 
nal nature is made a common standard, 
for the purposes of general convenience; 
and this is precisely the office performed 
by the precious metals, in addition to 
those uses to which, as metals, they are 
capable of being applied. There may 
be of these too much or too little in a 
country at a particular time, as there 
may be of any other articles. When 
the market is overstocked with them, as 
it often is, their exportation becomes as 
proper and as useful as that of other 
commodities, under similar circumstan- 
ces. We need no more re])iue, when 
the dollars which have been brought 
here from South America are despatched 
to other countries, than when colfee and 
sugar take the same direction. \\'e 
often deceive ourselves, by attributing 
to a scarcity of money that which is the 
result of other causes. In the course of 
this debate, the honorable member from 
Pennsylvania ^ has represented the coun- 
try as full of every thing but money. 
But this I take to be a mistake. The 
agricultural products, so abundant in 
Pennsylvania, will not, he says, sell for 
money; but they will sell for money as 
quick as for any other article which luqv 
pens to be in demand. They will sell 
for money, for example, as easily as for 
coffee or for tea, at the prices which 
properly belong to those articles. The 
mistake lies in imputing that to want 
of money which arises from want of 
demand. Men do not buy wheat be- 
cause they have money, but because 
they want wheat. To decide whether 
money be plenty or not, that is, whetiier 
there be a large portion of capital un- 
employed or not, when tlie currency of 
a country is metallic, we must look, not 
only to the prices of commodities, but 
also to the rate of interest. A low rat« 
of interest, a facility of obtaining money 
on loans, a disposition to invest in per- 
manent stocks, all of which are proofs 
that money is plenty, may nevertheless 

1 Mr. Tod. 



96 



THE TARIFF. 



often denote a state not of the highest 
prosperity. They may, and often do, 
sliow a want of employment for capital ; 
and the accumulation of specie shows 
the same thing. We have no occasion 
for the precious metals as money, except 
for the purposes of circulation, or rather 
of sustaining a safe paper circulation. 
And whenever there is a prospect of a 
profitable investment abroad, all the 
gold and silver, except what these pur- 
poses require, will be exported. For 
the same reason, if a demand exist 
abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever 
amount of those articles might exist in 
the country, beyond the wants of its 
own consmnption, w^ould be sent abroad 
to meet that demand. 

Besides, Sir, how should it ever occur 
to anybody, that we should continue to 
export gold and silver, if we did not 
continue to import them also ? If a 
vessel take our own products to the 
Havana, or elsewhere, exchange them 
for dollars, proceed to China, exchange 
them for silks and teas, bring these last 
to the ports of the Mediterranean, sell 
them there for dollars, and return to the 
United States, — this would be a voyage 
resulting in the importation of the pre- 
cious metals. But if she had returned 
from Cuba, and the dollars obtained 
there had been shipped direct from the 
United States to China, the China goods 
sold in Holland, and the proceeds brought 
home in the hemp and iron of Russia, 
this would be a voyage in which they 
were exported. Yet everybody sees that 
both might be equally beneficial to the 
individual and to the public. I believe. 
Sir, that, in point of fact, we have en- 
joyed great benefit iu our trade with 
India and China, from the liberty of 
going from place to place all over the 
world, without being obliged in the 
mean time to return home, a liberty not 
hei'etofore enjoyed by the private traders 
of England, in regard to India and 
China. Suppose the American ship to 
be at Brazil, for example; she could 
proceed with her dollars direct to India, 
and, in return, could distribute her 
cargo in all the various ports of Europe 
or America; while an English ship, if 



a private trader, being at Brazil, must 
first return to England, and then could 
only proceed in the direct line from 
England to India. This advantage our 
countrymen have not been backward to 
improve ; and in the debate to which I 
have already so often referred, it was 
stated, not without some complaint of 
the inconvenience of exclusion, and the 
natural sluggishness of monopoly, that 
American ships were at that moment 
fitting out in the Thames, to supply 
France, Holland, and other countries 
on the Continent, with tea; while the 
East India Company would not do this 
of themselves, nor allow any of their 
fellow-countrymen to do it for them. 

There is yet another subject, Mr. 
Chairman, upon which I would wish to 
say something, if I might presume upon 
the continued patience of the commit- 
tee. We hear sometimes in the House, 
and continually out of it, of the rate of 
exchange, as being one proof that we 
are on the downward road to ruin. Mr. 
Speaker himself has adverted to that 
topic, and I am afraid that his author- 
ity may give credit to opinions clearly 
unfounded, and which lead to very false 
and erroneous conclusions. Sir, let us 
see what the facts are. Exchange on 
England has recently risen one or one 
and a half per cent, partly owing, per- 
haps, to the introduction of this bill 
into Congress. Before this recent rise, 
and for the last six months, I understand 
its average may have been about seven 
and a half per cent advance. Now, 
supposing this to be the real, and not 
merely, as it is, the nominal, par of ex- 
change between us and England, what 
would it prove? Nothing, except that 
funds were wanted by American citi- 
zens in England for commercial opera- 
tions, to be carried on either in England 
or elsewhere. It would not necessarily 
show that we were indebted to England; 
for, if we had occasion to pay debts in 
Russia or Holland, funds in England 
would naturally enough be required for 
such a purpose. Even if it did prove 
that a balance was due England at the 
moment, it would have no tendency to 



THE TARIFF. 



07 



explain to us whether our commerce with 
England had been profitable or unprof- 
itable. 

But it is not true, in point of fact, 
that tiie real price of exchange is seven 
and a half per cent advance, nor, in- 
deed, that there is at the present mo- 
ment any advance at all. That is to 
say, it is not true that merchants will 
give such an advance, or any advance, 
for moneij in England, beyond what they 
would give for the same amount, in the 
same currency, here. It will strike 
every one who reflects uxwn it, that, if 
there were a real difference of seven and 
a half per cent, money would be imme- 
diately sliipped to England; because the 
expense of transportation would be far 
less tlian that diff.'rence. Or commodi- 
ties of trade would be shipped to Eu- 
lope, and the proceeds remitted to Eng- 
land. If it could so happen, that 
American merchants should be willing 
to pay ten per cent premium for money 
in P^ngland, or, in other words, that a 
real difference to that amount in the 
exchange should exist, its effects would 
be immediately seen in new shipments 
of our own commodities to Europe, be- 
cause this state of things would create 
new motives. A cargo of tobacco, for 
example, might sell at Amsterdam for 
the same price as before; but if its pro- 
ceeds, when remitted to London, were 
advanced, as they would be in such case, 
ten per cent by the state of exchange, 
this would be so much added to the price, 
and would operate therefore as a motive 
for the exportation; and in this way na- 
tional balances are, and always will be, 
adjusted. 

To form any accurate idea of the true 
state of exchange between two countries, 
we must look at their currencies, and 
compare the quantities of gold and silver 
which they may respectively represent. 
Tliis usually explains the .state of the 
exchanges; and this will satisfactorily 
account for the ajiparent advance now 
existing on bills drawn on England. 
The English standard of value is gold; 
with us that office is performed by gold, 
and by silver also, at a fixed relation to 
each other. But our estimate of silver 



is rather higher, in proportion to gold, 
tiian most nations give it; it is higher, 
especially, than in England, at the pres- 
ent moment. The consequence is, that 
silver, which remains a legal currency 
witli us, stays here, wiiile the gold luis 
gone abroad ; verifying the universal 
truth, that, if two currencies be allowed 
to exist, of different values, that which 
is cheapest will fill up the whole cir- 
culation. For as much gold as will 
suffice to pay here a debt of a given 
amount, we can buy in England more 
silver than would be nece.ssai-^ to pay 
the same debt here; and from tliis dif- 
ference in the value of silver arises 
wholly or in a great measure the pres- 
ent apparent difference in exchange. 
Spanish dollars sell now in P^ngland for 
four shillings and nine pence sterling 
per ounce, equal to one dollar and six 
cents. By our standard the same ounce 
is worth one dollar and sixteen cents, 
being a difference of about nine per 
cent. The true par of exchange, there- 
fore, is nine per cent. If a merchant 
here pay one hundred Spanish dollars 
for a bill on England, at nominal par, 
in sterling money, that is for a bill of 
£22 lO.v., the proceeds of this bill, when 
paid in England in the legal currency, 
will there purchase, at the jiresent price 
of silver, one hundred and nine Spanish 
dollars. Therefore, if the nominal ad- 
vance on English bills do not exceed 
nine per cent, the real exchange is not 
against this country; in other words, it 
does not show that there is any pressing 
or particular occasion for the remittance 
of funds to England. 

As little can be inferred from the 
occasional transfer of United States 
stock to England. Considering the in- 
terest paid on our stocks, the entire 
stability of om- credit, and the accumu- 
lation of capital in England, it is not at 
all wonderful that investments should 
occasionally be made in our funds. As 
a sort of countervailing fact, it may bo 
stiiUid that English stocks are now actu- 
ally held in this country, though ]iroba- 
bly not to any considerable amount. 

I will now proceed, Sir, to state some 



98 



THE TARIFF. 



objections of a more general nature to the 
course of Mr. Speaker's observations. 

He seems to me to argnie the question 
as if all domestic industry were con- 
fined to the production of manufactured 
articles; as if the -thij^loyment of our 
own capital and our own labor, in the 
occupations of commerce and navigation, 
were not as emphatically domestic in- 
dustry as any other occupation. Some 
other gentlemen, in the course of the 
debate, have spoken of the price paid 
for every foreign manufactured article 
as so much given for the encouragement 
of foreign labor, to the prejudice of our 
own. But is not every such aiticle the 
product of our own labor as truly as if 
we had manufactured it ourselves? Our 
labor has earned it, and jjaid the price 
for it. It is so much added to the stock 
of national wealth. If the commodity 
were dollars, nobody would doubt the 
truth of this remark ; and it is precisely 
as correct in its application to any other 
commodity as to silver. One man 
makes a yard of cloth at home ; another 
raises agricultural products and buys a 
yard of imported cloth. Both these are 
equally the earnings of domestic indus- 
tiy, and the only questions that arise in 
the case are two: the first is, which is 
the best mode, under all the circum- 
stances, of obtaining the article; the 
second is, how far this first question is 
proper to be decided by government, 
and how far it is proper to be left to 
individual discretion. There is no 
foundation for the distinction which 
attributes to certain employments the 
peculiar appellation of American in- 
dustiy; and it is, in my judgment, 
extremely unwise to attempt such dis- 
criminations. 

We are asked, What nations have 
ever attained eminent prosperity with- 
out encouraging manufactures? I may 
ask. What nation ever reached the like 
prosperity Hhout promoting foreign 
trade? I regard these interests as 
closely coi ected, and am of opinion 
that it should be our aim to cause them 
to flourish together. I know it would 
be very easy to promote manufactm-es, 
at least for a time, but probably for a 



short time only, if we might act in dis- 
regard of other interests. We could 
cause a sudden transfer of capital, and 
a violent change in the pursuits of men. 
We could exceedingly benefit some 
classes by these means. But what, 
then, becomes of the interests of others? 
The power of collecting revenue by 
duties on imports, and the habit of the 
government of collecting almost its 
whole revenue in that mode, will enable 
us, without exceeding the bounds of 
moderation, to give gTeat advantages to 
those classes of manufactures which we 
may think most useful to promote at 
home. What I object to is the im- 
moderate use of the power, — exclusions 
and prohibitions; all of which, as I 
think, not only interrupt the pursuits 
of individuals, with great injury to 
themselves and little or no benefit to 
the country, but also often divert our 
own labor, or, as it may very properly 
be called, our own domestic industry, 
from those occupations in which it is 
well employed and well paid, to others 
in which it will be worse employed and 
worse paid. For my part, I see very 
little relief to those who are likely to be 
deprived of theu- employnients, or who 
find the prices of the commodities which 
they need raised, in any of the alterna- 
tives which Mr. Speaker has presented. 
It is nothing to say that they may, if 
they choose, continue to buy the foreign 
article; the answer is, the price is aug- 
mented: nor that they may use the 
domestic article; the price of that also 
is increased. Nor can they supply them- 
selves by the substitution of their own 
fabric. How can the agriculturist make 
his own iron? How can the ship-owner 
grow his own hemp ? 

But I have a yet stronger objection to 
the course of Mr. Sjieaker's reasoning; 
which is, that he leaves out of the case 
all that has been already done for the 
protection of manufactm'es, and argues 
the question as if those interests were 
now for the first time to receive aid 
from duties on imports. I can hardly 
express the surprise I feel that Mr. 
Speaker shoidd fall into the common 
mode of expression used elsewhere, and 



THE TARIFF. 



99 



ask if we will give our manufacturers no 
protection. Sir, look to the histoiy of 
our laws; look to the present state of 
our laws. Consider that our whole 
revenue, with a trifling exception, is 
collected at the custom-house, and 
always has been; and then say what 
propriety there is in calling on the gov- 
ernment for protection, as if no pro- 
tection had heretofore been aiforded. 
'The real question before us, in regard 
to all the important clauses of the bill, 
is not whether we will lay duties, but 
whether we will augment duties. The 
demand is for something more than 
exists, and yet it is pressed as if nothing 
existed. It is wholly forgotten that iron 
and hemp, for example, already pay a 
very heaA^ and burdensome duty; and, 
in short, from the general tenor of ^Ir. 
Speaker's observations, one would infer 
that, hitherto, we had rather taxed our 
own manufactures than fostered them 
by taxes on those of other countries. 
We hear of the fatal policy of the tariff 
of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was 
passed avowedly for the benefit of manu- 
facturers, and, with very few exceptions, 
imposed on imported articles very great 
additions of tax; in some important 
instances, indeed, amounting to a pro- 
hibition. 
,^ SiTi-oarthis subject, it becomes us at 
least to understand the real posture of 
the question. Let us not suppose that 
we are heginninrj the protection of manu- 
factures, by duties on imports. What 
we are asked to do is, to render those 
duties much higher, and therefore, in- 
stead of dealing in general commenda- 
tions of the benefits of protection, the 
friends of the bill, I think, are bound 
to make out a fair case for each of the 
manufactures which they propose to 
benefit. The government has already 
done much for their protection, and it 
ought to be presumed to have done 
enough, unless it be shown, by the facts 
and considerations applicable to each, 
that there is a necessity for doing more. 
On the general question. Sir, allow 
me to ask if the doctrine of proiiibition, 
as a general doctrine, be not preposter- 
ous. Suppose all nations to act upon 



it; they would be prosperous, then, 
according to the argument, precisely in 
the projiortion ii. whicii they abolished 
intercourse with one another. The less 
of mutual comm "-ce the better, upon 
this hypothesis, xiotection and encour- 
agement may be, and doubtless are, 
sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept 
witliin proper limits; but when carried 
to an extravagant height, or the point of 
prohibition, the absurd character of the 
system manifests itself. Mr. Speaker 
has referred to the late Emperor Napo- 
leon, as having attempted to naturalize 
the manufacture of cotton in France. 
He did not cite a more extravagant part 
of the projects of that ruler, that is, his 
attempt to natiu-alize the growth of that 
plant itself, in France; whereas, we 
have understood that considerable dis- 
tricts in the South of France, and in 
Italy, of rich and productive lands, were 
at one time withdrawn from profitable 
uses, and devoted to raising, at great 
expense, a little bad cotton. Nor have 
we been referred to the attempts, under 
the same system, to make sugar and 
coffee from common culinary vegetables ; 
attempts w'hich served to fill the print- 
shops of Europe, and to show us how 
easy is the transition from what some 
think sublime to that wliieh all admit 
to be ridiculous. The folly of some of 
these projects has not been surpassed, 
nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the 
philosopher in one of the satires of 
Swift, who so long labored to extract 
sunbeams from cucumbers. 

The poverty and unhappiness of Spain 
have been attributed to the want of 
protection to her own industry. If by 
this it be meant that the poverty of 
Spain is owing to bad government and 
bad laws, the remark is, in a great 
measure, just. But tliese very laws are 
bad because they are restrictive, partial, 
and prohibitory. If prohibition were 
protection, Spain would • "m to have 
had enough of it. Nothinr can exceed 
the barbarous rigidity of .or colonial 
system, or the folly of her early com- 
mercial regulations. Unenlightened 
and bigoted legislation, the multitude 
of holidays, miserable roads, monopolies 



100 



THE TARIFF. 



on the part of government, restrictive 
]aws, that ought long since to have been 
abrogated, are generally, and 1 believe 
truly, reckoned the principal causes of 
the bad state of the productive industry 
of Spain. Any partial improvement in 
her condition, or increase of her pros- 
perity, has been, in all cases, the result 
of relaxation, and the abolition of what 
was intended for favor and protection. 

In short, Sir, the general sense of this 
age sets, with a strong current, in favor 
of freedom of commercial intercourse, 
and unrestrained individual action. 
Men yield up their notions of monopoly 
and restriction, as they yield up other 
prejudices, slowly and reluctantly; but 
they cannot withstand the general tide 
of opinion. 

Let me now ask, Sir, what relief this 
bill proposes to some of those great and 
essential interests of the country, the 
condition of which has been referred to 
as proof of national distress ; and which 
condition, although I do not think it 
makes out a case of distress, yet does 
indicate depression. 

And first. Sir, as to our foreign trade. 
Mr. Speaker has stated that there has 
been a considerable falling off in the 
tonnage employed in that trade. This 
is true, lamentably true. In my opinion, 
it is one of those occurrences which ought 
to arrest our immediate, our deep, our 
most earnest attention. What does this 
bill propose for its relief ? It proposes 
nothing but new burdens. It proposes 
to diminish its employment, and it pro- 
poses, at the same time, to augment its 
expense, by subjecting it to heavier tax- 
ation. Sir, there is no interest, in regard 
to which a stronger case for protection 
can be made out, than the navigating 
interest. Whether we look at its present 
condition, which is admitted to be de- 
pressed, the number of persons connected 
with it, and dependent upon it for their 
daily bread, or its importance to the 
country in a political point of view, it 
lias claims upon our attention which 
cannot be surpassed. But what do we 
propose to do for it ? I repeat. Sir, 
simply to burden and to tax it. By 
a statement which I have already sub- 



mitted to the committee, it appears that 
the shipping interest pays, annually, 
more than half a million of dollars in 
duties on articles used in the construc- 
tion of ships. We propose to add nearly, 
or quite, fifty per cent to this amount, 
at the very moment that we appeal to 
the languishing state of this interest as 
a proof of national distress. Let it be 
remembered that our shipping employed 
in foreign commerce has, at this mo- 
ment, not the shadow of government 
protection. It goes abroad upon the 
wide sea to make its own way, and earn 
its own bread, in a professed competition 
with the whole world. Its resources are 
its own frugality, its own skill, its own 
enterprise. It hopes to succeed, if it 
shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary 
aid of government, but by patience, vigi- 
lance, and toil. This right arm of the 
nation's safety strengihens its own mus- 
cle by its own efforts, and by unwearied 
exei'tion in its own defence becomes 
strong for the defence of the country. 

No one acquainted with this interest 
can deny that its situation, at this mo- 
ment, is extremely critical. We have 
left it hitherto to maintain itself or per- 
ish; to swim if it can, and to sink if it 
must. But at this moment of its ap- 
parent struggle, can we as men, can we 
as patriots, add another stone to the 
weight that threatens to carry it down ? 
Sir, there is a limit to human power, 
and to human effort. I know the com- 
mercial marine of this country can do 
almost every thing, and bear almost ev- 
ery thing. Yet some things are impos- 
sible to be done, and some burdens may 
be impossible to be borne ; and as it was 
the last ounce that broke the back of the 
camel, so the last tax, although it were 
even a small one, may be decisive as to 
the power of our marine to sustain the 
conflict in which it is now engaged with 
all the commercial nations on the globe. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the failures and 
the bankruptcies which have taken place 
in our large cities have been mentioned 
as proving the little success attending 
commerce, and its general decline. But 
this bill has no balm for those wounds. 
It is veiy remarkable, that when the 



THE TAKIFF. 



101 



losses and disasters of certain manufac- 
turers, those of iron, for instance, are 
mentioned, it is done for the purpose 
of invokins^ aid for tlie distressed. Not 
so with the losses and disasters of com- 
merce; these last are narrated, aiid not 
unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove 
tlie ruinous nature of the employment, 
and to show that it ought to be aban- 
doned, and the capital engaged in it 
turned to other objects. 

It has been often said, Sir, that our 
manufacturers have to contend, not only 
against the natural advantages of those 
who produce similar articles in foreign 
countries, but also against the action 
of foreign governments, who have great 
political interest in aiding their own 
manufactures to suppress ours. But 
have not these governments as great an 
interest to cripple our marine, by pre- 
venting the growth of our commerce 
and navigation ? 'NMuxt is it that makes 
us the object of the highest respect, or 
the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign 
states ? What is it that most enables 
us to take high relative rank among the 
nations ? I need not say that this re- 
sults, more than from any thing else, 
from that quantity of military power 
which we can cause to be water-borne, 
and from that extent of commerce which 
we are able to maintain throughout the 
world. 

Mr. Chairman, I am conscious of hav- 
ing detained the committee much too 
long with tliese observations. My apol- 
ogy for now proceeding to some remarks 
upon the particular clauses of the bill is, 
that, representing a district at once com- 
mercial and highly manufacturing, and 
being called upon to vote upon a bill 
containing provisions so numerous and 
so various, I am naturally desirous to 
state as well what I approve, as what I 
would reject. 

The first section proposes an aug- 
mented duty upon woollen manufactures. 
This, if it were unqualified, would no 
doul)t be desirable to those who are en- 
gaged in that business. I have myself 
presented a petition from the woollen 
manufacturers of Massachusetts, pray- 



ing an augmented ad valorem duty upon 
imported woollen cloths; and I am pre- 
pared to accede to that proposition, to a 
reasonable extent. But then this bill 
proposes, also, a very high duty upon 
imported wool ; and, as far as I can 
learn, a majority of the manufacturers 
are at least extremely doubtful whether, 
taking these two provisions together, tlie 
state of the law is not better for tliem 
now than it would be if this bill should 
pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool 
will benefit the agriculturist ; but I know 
it to be the opinion of some of the best 
informed of that class, that it will do 
them more hurt than good. They fear 
it will check the manufacturer, and con- 
sequently check his demand for their ar- 
ticle. The argument is, that a certain 
quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we 
can possibly furnish, is necessary to en- 
able the manufacturer to carry on the 
general business, and that if this cannot 
be had, the consequence will be, not a 
greater, but a less, manufacture of our 
own wool. I am aware that very in- 
telligent persons differ upon this point; 
but if we may safely infer from that dif- 
ference of opinion, that the proposed 
benefit is at least doubtful, it would be 
prudent perhaps to abstain from the ex- 
periment. Certain it is, that the same 
reasoning has been employed, as I have 
before stated, on the same subject, when 
a renewed application was made to the 
English Parliament to repeal the duty on 
imported wool, I believe scarcely two 
months ago; those who supported the 
application pressing urgently the neces- 
sity of an unrestricted use of the cheap, 
imported raw material, with a view to 
supply wdth coarse cloths tiie markets 
of warm climates, such as those of Egypt 
and Turkey, and especially a vast newly 
created demand in the South American 
states. 

As to the manufactures of cotton, it 
is agreed, I believe, that they are gen- 
erally successful. It is understood that 
the present existing duty oi)erates pretty 
much as a prohibition over lho.se descrij)- 
tions of fabrics to which it applies. Tiie 
proposed alteration would probably r\\- 
able the American manufacturer to cum- 



102 



THE TARIFF. 



mence competition with higher-priced 
fabrics; and so, perhaps, would an aug- 
mentation less tlian is here proposed. 
I consider the cotton manufactui'es not 
only to have reached, but to have passed, 
the point of competition. I regard their 
success as certain, and their growth as 
rapid as the most impatient could well 
expect. If, however, a provision of the 
nature of that recommended here were 
thought necessary, to commence new 
operations in the same line of manu- 
facture, I should cheerfully agree to it, 
if it were not at the cost of sacrificing 
other great interests of the country. I 
need hardly say, that whatever promotes 
the cotton and woollen manufactiu'es 
promotes most important interests of 
my constituents. They have a great 
stake in the success of those establish- 
ments, and, as far as those manufac- 
tures are concerned, would be as much 
benefited by the provisions of this bill 
as any part of the community. It is ob- 
vious, too, I should think, that, for some 
considerable tune, manufactures of this 
sort, to whatever magnitude they may 
rise, will be princiijally established in 
those parts of the country where popu- 
lation is most dense, capital most abun- 
dant, and where the most successful be- 
ginnings have already been made. 

But if these be thought to be advan- 
tages, they are greatly counterbalanced 
by other advantages enjoyed by other 
portions of the countiy. I cannot but 
regard the situation of the West as high- 
ly favorable to human happiness. It 
offers, in the abundance of its new and 
fertile lands, such assurances of per- 
manent jiroperty and respectability to 
the industrious, it enables them to lay 
such sure foundations for a competent 
provision for their families, it makes 
such a nation of freeholders, that it need 
not envy the happiest and most pros- 
perous of the manufacturing communi- 
ties. We may talk as we will of well-fed 
and well-clothed day-laborers or journey- 
men ; they are not, after all, to be com- 
pared, either for happiness or respecta- 
bility, with him who sleeps under his 
own roof and cultivates his own fee- 
simple inheritance. 



With respect to the proposed duty on 
glass, I would observe, that, upon the 
best means of judging which I possess, 
I am of opinion that the chairman of the 
committee is right in stating that there 
is in effect a bounty upon the exporta- 
tion of the British article. I think it 
entirely proper, therefore, to raise our 
own duty by such an amount as shall be 
equivalent to that bounty. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, before pro- 
ceeding to those parts of the bill to 
which I most strenuously object, I will 
be so presumptuous as to take up a chal- 
lenge which Mr. Speaker has thrown 
down. He has asked us, in a tone of 
interrogatorjf indicative of the feeling 
of anticipated ti'iumph, to mention any 
country in which manufactures have 
flourished without the aid of prohib- 
itory laws. He has demanded if it be 
not policy, protection, ay, and prohibi- 
tion, that have carried other states to 
tlie height of their prosperity, and 
whether any one has succeeded with 
such tame and inert legislation as ours. 
Sir, I am ready to answer this inquiry. 

There is a country, not undistin- 
guished among the nations, in which 
the progress of manufactures has been 
far more rapid than in any other, and 
yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural 
restrictions. That country, the happi- 
est which the sun shines on, is our own. 

The woollen manufactures of England 
have existed from the early ages of the 
monarchy. Provisions designed to aid 
and foster them are in the black-letter 
statutes of the Edwards and the Henrys. 
Ours, on the contrary, are but of yester- 
day; and yet, with no more than the 
protection of existing laws, they are 
already at the point of close and promis- 
ing competition. Sir, nothing is more 
un philosophical than to refer us, on 
these subjects, to the policy adopted by 
other nations in a very different state 
of society, or to infer that what was 
judged expedient by them, in their 
early history, must also be expedient 
for us, in this early part of our own. 
Tins would be reckoning our age chron- 
ologically, and estimating our advance 
by our number of years; when, in truth, 



THE TARIFF. 



103 



we should regard only the state of so- 
ciety, the knowledge, the skill, the 
capital, and the enterprise which be- 
lon'T to our times. We have been 
transferred from the stock of Europe, 
in a comparatively enlightened age, and 
our civilization and improvement date 
as far back as her own. Her original 
liistory is also our original history ; and 
if, since the moment of separation, she 
has gone ahead of us in some respects, 
it may be said, without violating truth, 
that we have kept up in others, and, in 
others again, are ahead ourselves. We 
are to legislate, then, with regard to 
the present actual state of society ; and 
our own experience shows us, that, 
commencing manufactures at the pres- 
ent highly enlightened and emulous 
moment, we need not resort to the 
clumsy helps with which, in less auspi- 
cious times, governments have sought 
to enable the ingenuity and industry of 
their people to hobble along. 

The English cotton manufactures 
becran about the commencement of the 
last reign. Ours can hardly be said to 
have commenced with any earnestness, 
until the application of the power-loom, 
in 1814, not more than ten years ago. 
Now, Sir, I hardly need again speak of 
its progress, its present extent, or its 
assurance of future enlargement, /in 
f some sorts of fabrics we are already ex- 
porters, and the products of our facto- 
ries are, at this moment, in the South 
American markets. We see, then, 
what can be done without prohibition 
or extraordinary protection, because we 
see what has been done; and I venture 
to predict, that, in a few years, it 
will be thought wonderful that these 
branches of manufactures, at least, 
should have been thought to require 
-. additional aid from government. 
^'^ — Mr. Chairman, the best apology for 
laws of prohibition and laws of mo- 
nopoly will be found in that state of 
society, not only unenlightened but 
sluggish, in which they are most gener- 
ally established. Private industry, in 
those days, required strong provocatives, 
■which governments were seeking to ad- 



minister by these means. 



Something 



was wanted to actuate and stimulate 
men, and the prospects of such profits 
as would, in our times, excite un- 
bounded competition, would hardly 
move the slotli of former ages. In 
some instances, no doubt, the.se laws 
produced an effect, whicli, in that 
period, would not have taken place 
without them. But our age is of a 
wholly different character, and its legis- 
lation takes another turn. / Society is 
full of excitement; competition comes 
in place of monopoly; and intelligence 
and industry ask only for fair play and 
an open field. Profits, indeed, in sucli 
a state of things, will be small, but 
they will be extensively diffused; prices 
will be low, and the great body of tiie 
people prosperous and happy, ^^t is 
worthy of remark, that, from the opera- 
tion of these causes, commercial wealth, 
while it is increased beyond calculation 
ill its general aggregate, is, at the same 
time, broken and diminished in its sub- 
divisions. Commercial prosperity should 
be judged of, therefore, rather from the 
extent of trade, than from the magni- 
tude of its apparent profits. It has 
been remarked, that Spain, certainly 
one of the poorest nations, made very 
great profits on the amount of her 
trade; but with little other benefit than 
the enriching of a few individuals and 
companies. Profits to the English 
merchants engaged in the "Levant and 
Tuikey trade were formerly very great, 
and there were richer merchants in 
England some centuries ago, consider- 
ing the comparative value of money, 
than at the present highly commercial 
period. When tlie diminution of profits 
arises from the extent of competition, it 
indicates rather a salutaiy than an in- 
jurious change.' 

1 " The present eqn.iMo diffusion of moder- 
ate woaltii cannot be l)etler illiistiated, than liy 
remarking that in this aire many pahuvs and 
superb mansions have been pulled down, or 
converted to other purposes, while none have 
been erected on a like scale. The nuinbcrles.s 
baronial castles and mansions, in all parts of 
Enghnul, now in ruins, may all \w adduced jis 
examples of the decrease of inonlinate wciilth. 
On the other hand, the multiplication of coui- 



1G4 



THE TARIFF. 



The true course then, Sir, for us to 
pursue, is, iu my opinion, to consider 
what our situation is; what our means 
are; and how they can be best applied. 
What amount of population have we in 
comparison with our extent of soil, 
what amount of capital, and labor at 
what price ? As to skill, knowledge, 
and enterprise, we may safely take it 
for granted that in these particulars we 
are on an equality with others. Keep- 
ing these considerations in view, allow 
me to examine two or three of those 
provisions of the bill to which I feel 
the strongest objections. 

To begin with the article of iron. 
Our whole annual consumption of this 
article is supposed by the chairman of 
the committee to be forty-eight or fifty 
thousand tons. Let us suppose the 
latter. The amount of our own manu- 
facture he estimates, I think, at seven- 
teen thousand tons. The present duty 
on the imported article is $15 per ton, 
and as this duty causes, of course, an 
equivalent augmentation of the price of 
the home manufacture, the whole in- 
crease of price is equal to $750,000 an- 
nually. This sum we pay on a raw 
material, and on an absolute necessary 
of life. The bill proposes to raise the 
duty from $15 to $22.50 per ton, which 
would be equal to $1,125,000 on the 
whole annual consumption. So that, 
suppose the point of prohibition which 
is aimed at by some gentlemen to be 
attained, the consumers of the article 
would pay this last-mentioned sum 
every year to the producers of it, over 
and above the price at which they could 
supply themselves with the same article 
from other sources. There would be no 
mitigation of this burden, except from 
tiie prospect, whatever that might be, 
that iron would fall in value, by domes- 
tic competition, after the importation 
should be prohibited. It will be easy, 
I think, to show that it cannot fall; and 
supposing for the present that it shall 

modioua dwellings for the upper and middle 
classes of society, and the increased comforts 
of all ranks, exhibit a picture of individual hap- 
piness, unknown in any other age." — Sir G. 
Blane's Letter to Lord Spencer, in 1800. 



not, the result will be, that we shall 
pay annually the sum of $1,125,000, 
constantly augmented, too, by increased 
consumption of the article, to support a 
business that cannot support itself. ' ' ^-j : ? 
It is of no consequence to the argu- 
ment, that this sum is expended at 
home; so it would be if we taxed the 
people to support any other useless and 
expensive establishment, to build an- 
other Capitol, for example, or incur an 
unnecessary expense of any sort. The 
question still is. Are the money, time, 
and labor well laid out in these cases ? 
The present price of iron at Stockholm, 
I am assured by importers, is $53 per 
ton on board, $i8 in the yard before 
loading, and probably not far from $iO 
at the mines. Freight, insurance, &c. 
may be fairly estimated at $15, to which 
add our present duty of $15 more, and 
these two last sums, together with the 
cost on board at Stockholm, give $83 as 
the cost of Swedes iron in our market. 
In fact, it is said to have been sold last 
year at $81.50 to $82 per ton. We per- 
ceive, by this statement, that the cost 
of the iron is doubled in reaching us 
from the mine in which it is produced. 
In other words, our present duty, with 
the expense of transportation, gives an 
advantage to the American over the 
foreign manufacturer of one hundred 
per cent. Why, then, cannot the iron 
be manufactured at home? Our ore 
is said to be as good, and some of it 
better. It is under our feet, and the 
chairman of the committee tells us that 
it might be wrought by persons who 
otherwise will not be employed. Why, 
then, is it not wrought? Nothing 
could be more sure of constant sale. It 
is not an article of changeable fashion, 
but of absolute, permanent necessity, 
and such, therefore, as would always 
meet a steady demand. Sir, I think it 
would be well for the chairman of the 
committee to revise his premises, for I 
am persuaded that there is an ingre- 
dient properly belonging to the calcula- 
tion which he has misstated or omitted. 
Swedes iron in England pays a duty, I 
think, of about $27 per ton; yet it is 
imported in considerable quantities, 



THE TARIFF. 



105 



notwithstanding the vast capital, the 
excellent coal, and, more important 
than all perhaps, the highly improved 
state of inland navigation in England; 
although I am aware that the English 
use of Swedes iron may be thought to 
be owing in some degree to its superior 
(piality. 

Sir, the true explanation of this ap- 
pears to me to lie in the different prices 
of labor; and here I appi'ehend is the 
grand mistake in the argument of the 
chairman of the committee. He says 
it would cost the nation, as a nation, 
nothing, to make our ore into iron. 
Now, I think it would cost us precisely 
that which we can worst afford; that is, 
great labor. Although bar-iron is very 
properly considered a raw material in 
respect to its various future uses, yet, 
as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in 
its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no 
nation has more than a certain quantity, 
nor can it be increased at will. As to 
some operations, indeed, its place may 
be supplied by machinery; but there are 
other services which machinery cannot 
yjerform for it, and which it must per- 
form for itself. A most important ques- 
tion for every nation, as well as for 
every individual, to propose to itself, is, 
how it can best apply that quantity of 
labor which it is able to perform. La- 
bor is the great producer of wealth ; it 
moves all other causes. If it call ma- 
chinery to its aid, it is still employed, 
not only in using the machinery, but in 
making it. Now, with respect to the 
quantity of labor, as we all know, dif- 
ferent nations are differently circum- 
stanced. Some need, more than any 
thing, work for hands, others require 
hands for work ; and if we ourselves are 
not absolutely in the latter class, we are 
still most fortunately very near it. I 
caimot find that we have those idle 
hands, of which the chairman of the 
committee speaks. The price of labor 
is a conclusive and unanswerable refu- 
tation of that idea; it is known to be 
hiccher with us than in any other civil- 
ized state, and this is the gi-eatest of all 
proofs of general happiness. Labor in 
this country is independent and proud. 



It has not to ask the patronage of capi- 
tal, but capital solicits the aid of labor. 
This is the general truth in regard to 
the condition of our whole population, 
although in the large cities there are 
doubtless many exceptions. The mere 
capacity to labor in couuikju agricultu- 
ral employments, gives to our young 
men the assurance of independence. 
We have been asked, Sir, by the chair- 
man of the committee, in a tone of some 
pathos, whether we will allow to the 
serfs of Russia and Sweden the benefit 
of making iron for us. Let me inform 
the gentleman. Sir, that those same 
serfs do not earn more than seven cents 
a day, and that they work in these 
mines for that compensation because 
they are serfs. And let me ask the gen- 
tleman further, whether we have any 
labor in this country that cannot be 
better employed than in a business 
which does not yield the laborer more 
than seven cents a day ? This, it ap- 
pears to me, is the true question for our 
consideration. There is no reason for 
saying that we will work iron because 
we have mountains that contain the ore. 
We might for the same reason dig among 
our rocks for the scattered grains of 
gold and silver which might be found 
there. The true inquiry is. Can we pro- 
duce the article in a useful state at the 
same cost, or nearly at the same cost, 
or at any reasonable approximation to- 
wards the same cost, at which we can 
import it ? 

Some general estimates of the price 
and profits of labor, in those countries 
from which we import our u-on, might 
be formed by comparing the reputed 
products of different mines, and their 
prices, with the number of hands em- 
ployed. The mines of Danemora are 
said to yield about 4,000 tons, and to 
employ in the mines twelve hundred 
workmen. Suppose this to be worth 
$50 per ton ; any one will find by com- 
putation, that the whole product would 
not pay, in this country, for one quarter 
part of the necessary labor. The whole 
export of Sweden was estimated, a few 
years ago, at 400,000 shiii pounds, or 
about 54,000 tons. Conqjuring this 



106 



THE TARIFF. 



product with the number of workmen 
usually supposed to be employed in the 
mines which produce iron for exporta- 
tion, the result will not gi-eatly differ 
from the foregoing. These estimates 
are general, and might not conduct us 
to a precise result; but we know, from 
intelligent travellers, and eye-witnesses, 
that the price of labor in the Swedish 
mines does not exceed seven cents a 
day.i 

The true reason. Sir, why it is not our 
policy to compel our citizens to manu- 
facture our own iron, is that they are 
far better employed. It is an unpro- 
ductive business, and they are not poor 
enough to be obliged to follow it. If 
we had more of poverty, more of mis- 
ery, and something of servitude, if we 
had an ignorant, idle, starving popula- 
tion, we might set up for iron makers 
against the world. 

The committee will take notice, Mr. 
Chairman, that, under our present duty, 
together with the expense of transpor- 
tation, our manufacturers are able to 
supply their own immediate neighbor- 
hood ; and this proves the magnitude of 
that substantial encouragement which 
these two causes concur to give. Tliere 
is little or no foreign iron, I presume, 
used in the county of Lancaster. This 
is owing to the heavy expense of land 

1 The price of labor in Russia may be pretty 
well collected from Tooke's " View of the Kiis- 
sian Empire." "The workmen in the mines 
and the founderies are, indeed, all called mas- 
ter-people; but they distinguish themselves into 
masters, under-masters, apprentices, delvers, 
servants, carriers, washers, and separators. In 
proportion to their ability their wages are regu- 
lated, which proceed from fifteen to upwards 
of thirty roubles per annum. The provisions 
which they receive from the magazines are 
deducted from this pav." The value of the 
rouble at that time (1799) was about twenty- 
four pence sterling, or forty-five cents of our 
money. 

"By the edict of 1799," it is added, "a 
laborer with a horse shall receive, daily, in 
sunmier, twenty, and in winter, twelve co- 
pecks ; a laborer without a horse, in summer, 
ten, in winter, eight copecks." 

A copeck is the hundredth part of a rouble, 
or about half a cent of our money. The price 
of labor may have risen, in some degree, since 
that period, but probably not much. 



carriage ; and as we recede farther from 
the coast, the manufacturers are still 
more completely secured, as to their own 
immediate market, against the compe- 
tition of the imported article. But 
what they ask is to be allowed to supply 
the sea-coast, at such a price as shall be 
formed by adding to the cost at the 
mines the expense of land carriage to 
the sea; and this appears to me most 
unreasonable. The effect of it would 
be to compel the consumer to pay the 
cost of two land transportations ; for, in 
the first place, the price of ia-on at the 
inland furnaces will always be found to 
be at, or not much below, the price of 
the imported article in the seaport, and 
the cost of transportation to the neigh- 
borhood of the furnace; and to enable 
the home product to hold a competition 
with the imported in the seaport, the 
cost of another transportation down- 
ward, from the furnace to the coast, 
must be added. Until our means of 
inland commerce be improved, and the 
charges of transportation by that means 
lessened, it appears to me wholly im- 
practicable, with such duties as any one 
would think of proposing, to meet the 
wishes of the manufacturers of this ar- 
ticle. Suppose we were to add the duty 
proposed by this bill, although it would 
benefit the capital invested in works 
near the sea and the navigable rivers, 
yet the benefit would not extend far in 
the interior. Where, then, are we to 
stop, or what limit is proposed to us? 

The freight of iron has been afforded 
from Sweden to the United States as 
low as eight dollars per ton. This is 
not more than the price of fifty miles 
of land carriage. Stockholm, therefore, 
for the purpose of this argument, may 
be considered as within fifty miles of 
Philadelphia. Now, it is at once a just 
and a strong view of this case, to con- 
sider, that there are, within fifty miles 
of our market, vast multitudes of per- 
sons who are willing to labor in the pro- 
duction of this article for us, at the rate 
of seven cents per day, while we have 
no labor which will not command, upon 
the average, at least five or six times 
that amount. The question is, then, 



THE TARIFF. 



107 



shall we buy this article of these manu- 
facturers, and suffer our own labor to 
earn its greater reward, or shall we em- 
ploy our own labor in a similar manu- 
facture, and make up to it, by a tax on 
consumers, the loss which it nmst neces- 
sarily sustain. 

I proceed. Sir, to the article of hemp. 
Of this we imported last year, in round 
numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of 
.?30 a ton, or ^180,000 on the whole 
amount; and this article, it is to be re- 
membered, is consumed almost entirely 
in the uses of navigation. The whole 
burden may be said to fall on one in- 
terest. It is said we can produce this 
article if we will raise the duties. But 
why is it not produced now? or why, at 
least, have we not seen some speci- 
mens ? for the present is a very high 
duty, when expenses of importation are 
added. Hemp was purchased at St. 
Petersburg, last year, at $101. G7 per 
ton. Charges attending shipment, &c., 
^14.25. Freight may be stated at .$30 
per ton, and our existing duty $30 more. 
These three last sums, being the charges 
of transportation, amount to a protec- 
tion of near seventy-five per cent in 
favor of the home manufacturer, if 
there be any such. And we ought to 
consider, also, that the price of hemp at 
St. Petersburg is increased by all the 
exjDense of transportation from the 
place of growth to that port; so that 
probably the whole cost of transporta- 
tion, from the place of growth to our 
market, including our duty, is equal to 
the first cost of the article ; or, in other 
words, is a protection in favor of our 
own product of one hundred per cent. 

And since it is stated that we have 
great quantities of fine land for the pro- 
duction of hemp, of which I have no 
doubt, the question recurs, Why is it 
not produced ? I speak of the water- 
rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that 
which is dew-rotted is not sufficiently 
good for the retiuisite purposes. I can- 
not say whether the cause be in climate, 
in the process of rotting, or what else, 
but the fact is certain, that there is 
no American water-rotted hemp in the 
market. Vi'e are acting, therefore, upon 



an hypothesis. Is it not reasonable that 
those who say that they can produce the 
article shall at least prove tlie truth of 
that allegation, before new taxes are 
laid on those who use the foreign com- 
modity ? Suppose this l)ill passes; the 
price of hemp is immediately raised 
$14.80 per ton, and this burden falls 
immediately on the ship-builder; and 
no part of it, for the present, will go for 
the benefit of the American grower, be- 
cause he has none of the article that 
can be used, nor is it expected that much 
of it will be produced for a considerable 
time. Still the tax takes effect upon the 
imported article; and the ship-owners, 
to enable the Kentucky farmer to re- 
ceive an additional $14 on his ton of 
liemp, whenever he may be able to raise 
and manufacture it, pay, in the mean 
time, an equal sum per ton into the 
treasury on all the imjtorted hemp whicli 
they are still obliged to use ; and this is 
called "protection"! Is this just or 
fair ? A particular interest is here bui'- 
dened, not only for the benefit of an- 
other particular interest, but burdened 
also beyond that, for the benefit of the 
treasury. It is said to be important for 
the country that this article should be 
raised in it; then let the country bear 
the expense, and pay the bounty. If it 
be for the good of the whole, let the 
sacrifice be made by tlie whole, and not 
by a part. If it be thought useful and 
necessary, from political considerations, 
to encourage the growth and manufac- 
ture of hemp, government has abundant 
means of doing it. It miglit give a di- 
rect bounty, and such a lueasure wouM, 
at least, distribute the burden equally; 
or, as government itself is a great con- 
sumer of this article, it might stipulate 
to confine its own ])urchases to the homo 
product, so soon as it should be shown 
to be of the jiroper quality. I see no 
objection to this proceeding, if it be 
thought to be an object to encom-age 
the production. It might ea^sily, and 
perhaps properly, be provided by law, 
that the navy should be supjilied with 
American liemp, the quality being good, 
at any price not exceeding, by nu)re 
than a given amount, the current price 



108 



THE TARIFF. 



of foreign hemp in our market. Every 
thing conspires to render some such 
course preferable to the one now pro- 
posed. The encouragement in that way 
would be ample, and, if the experiment 
should succeed, the whole object would 
be gained; and, if it should fail, no con- 
siderable loss or evil would be felt by 
any one. 

I stated, some days ago, and I wish 
to renew the statement, what was the 
amount of the proposed augmentation 
of the duties on iron and hemp, in the 
cost of a vessel. Take the case of a 
common ship of three hundred tons, not 
coppered, nor copper-fastened. It would 
stand thus, by the present duties: — 

14J tons of iron, for hull, rigging, and 

anchors, at $35 per ton, . . $217.50 

10 tons of hemp, at $m, 300.00 

40 bolts Russia duck, at S2, .... 80.00 
20 bolts Ravens duck, at $1.25, . . . 25.00 
On articles of ship-chandlery, cabin 

furniture, hard-ware, &c., ... 40 00 

$GG2.50 



The bill proposes to add, — 

$7.40 per ton on iron, which will be . $107.30 
$14.80 per ton on hemp, equal to . . 148.00 
And on duck, by the late amendment 

of the bill, say 25 per cent, . . 25.00 

$280.30 



But to the duties on iron and hemp 
should be added those paid on copper, 
whenever that article is used. By the 
statement which I furnished the other 
day, it appeared that the duties received 
by government on articles used in the 
construction of a vessel of three hundred 
and fifty-nine tons, with copper fasten- 
ings, amounted to (^1,056. With the 
augmentations of this bill, they would 
be equal to $1,400. 

Now I cannot but flatter myself, Mr. 
Chaiiman, that, before the committee 
will consent to this new burden upon 
the shipping interest, it will very delib- 
erately weigh the probable consequences. 
I would again urgently solicit its atten- 
tion to the condition of that interest. 
We are told that government has pro- 
tected it, by discriminating duties, and 
by an exclusive right to the coasting- 
trade. But it would retain the coasting 



trade by its own natural efforts, in like 
manner, and with more certainty, than 
it now retains any portion of foreign 
trade. The discriminating duties are 
now abolished, and while they existed, 
they were nothing more than counter- 
vailing measures; not so much designed 
to give our navigation an advantage 
over that of other nations, as to put it 
upon an equality; and we have, accord- 
ingly, abolished ours, when they have 
been willing to abolish theirs. Look to 
the rate of freights. Were they ever 
lower, or even so low? I ask gentle- 
men who know, whether the harbor of 
Charleston, and the river of Savannali, 
be not crowded with ships seeking em- 
ployment, and finding none? I would 
ask the gentlemen from New Orleans, 
if their magnificent Mississippi does 
not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of 
ma.sts? The condition, Sir, of the ship- 
ping interest is not that of those who 
are insisting on high profits, or strug- 
gling for monopoly ; but it is the condi- 
tion of men content with the smallest 
earnings, and anxious for their bread. 
The freight of cotton has formerly been 
three pence sterling, from Charleston to 
Liverpool, in time of peace. It is now 
I know not what, or how many fractions 
of a penny ; I think, however, it is stated 
at five eighths. The producers, then, of 
this great staple, are able, by means of 
this navigation, to send it, for a cent a 
pound, from their own doors to the best 
market in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I will now only re- 
mind the committee that, while we are 
proposing to add new burdens to the 
shipping interest, a very different line 
of policy is followed by our great com- 
mercial and maritime rival. It seems 
to be announced as the sentiment of the 
government of England, and undoubt- 
edly it is its real sentiment, that the 
first of all manufactures is the manufac- 
ture of ships. A constant and wakeful 
attention is paid to this interest, and 
very important regulations, favorable to 
it, have been adopted within the last 
year, some of which I will beg leave to 
refer to, with the hope of exciting the 
notice, not only of the committee, but 



THE TARIFF. 



109 



of all others who may feel, as I do, a 
deep interest in this subject. In the 
first place, a general amendment lias 
taken place in the register acts, introduc- 
ing many new provisions, and, among 
others, tlie following: — 

A direct mortgage of the interest of 
a ship is allowed, without subjecting 
the mortgagee to the responsibility of an 
owner. 

The proportion of interest held by 
each owner is exhibited in the register, 
thereby facilitating both sales and mort- 
gages, and giving a new value to ship- 
ping among the moneyed classes. 

Shares, in the ships of copartnerships, 
may be registered as joint property, and 
subject to the same rules as other part- 
nership effects. 

Ships may be registered in the name 
of trustees, for the benefit of joint-stock 
companies. 

And many other regulations are adopt- 
ed, witli the same general view of ren- 
dering the mode of holding the property 
as convenient and as favorable as pos- 
sible. 

By another act, British registered ves- 
sels, of every description, are allowed 
to enter into the general and the coast- 
ing trade in the India seas, and may 
now trade to and from India, with any 
part of the world except China. 

By a third, all limitations and restric- 
tions, as to latitude and longitude, are 
removed from ships engaged in tlie 
Southern whale-fishery. These regula- 
tions, I presume, have not been made 
without first obtaining the consent of 
the East India Company; so true is it 
found, that real encouragement of enter- 
prise oftener consists, in our days, in 



restraining or buying off monopolies 
and prohibitions, than in imposing or 
extending them. 

The trade with Ireland is turned into 
a free coasting trade; light duties have 
been reduced, and various otlierbontificial 
arrangements made, and still otliors pro- 
loosed. I might add, that, in favor of 
general commerce, and as showing tiieir 
confidence in the i)rinciples of liberal 
intercourse, the British governmimt has 
perfected the warehouse system, and 
.autliorized a reciprocity of duties with 
foreign states, at the discretion of the 
Privy Council. 

This, Sir, is tlie attention whicli our 
great rival is paying to these important 
subjects, and we may assure ourselves 
that, if we do not cherish a proper sense 
of our own interests, she will not only 
beat us, but will deserve to beat us. 

Sir, I will detain you no longer. 
There are some parts of this bill wiiich 
I highly approve; there are others in 
which I should acquiesce; but those to 
which I have now stated my objections 
appear to me so destitute of all justice, 
so burdensome and so dangerous to that 
interest which has steadily enriched, 
gallantly defended, and proudly distin- 
guished us, that nothing can prevail 
upon me to give it my support.^ 

1 Since the delivery of this speecli, an ar- 
rival lias brought London papers containing tiio 
speech of the Englisli Cliancellor of tiie Kx- 
chequer(Mr. Robinson), on the 2-')(l of Febru- 
ary last, in submitting to Parliament the annual 
financial statement. Abundant confirmation 
will be found in that statement of the remarks 
made in the preceding speech, as to the prevail- 
ing sentiment, in the English government, on tiiO 
general sul)joct of prohibitory laws, and on the 
silk manufacture and the wool tax particularly. 



NOTE. 



This is commonly called Mr. Webster's 
" Free Trade " speech. It has been found 
difficult to select one among his many 
speeches in support of the policy of Pro- 
tection which would fully represent his 
views on the subject ; but the reasons for 
his change of opinion, and for his advocacy 



of Protection, are fully stated in many of 
the speeches printed in this vohnue, deliv- 
ered after the year 18:J(). IVrliaps as g'X'd 
a statement as can be seh'cted from liiii 
many speeches on the TarilT, in explana- 
tion 'of his change of position as to the 
need, policy, and duty of protection to 



I 



110 



THE TARIFF. 



American manufactures, may be found in 
Ills speech delivered in the Senate of tlie 
United States, on the2;jth and 20th of July, 
1846, on the Hill " To reduce the Duties on 
Imports, and for other Purposes." In this 
speech, he made the following frank avow- 
al of the reasons which induced him to 
reconsider and reverse his original opinions 
on the subject : — 

"But, Sir, before I proceed further with this 
part of the case, I will take notice of what ap- 
])cars, latterly, to be an attempt, bj' the repub- 
lication of opinions and expressions, arguments 
and speeches of mine, at an earlier and later 
period of life, to found against me a charge of 
inconsistency, on this subject of the protective 
policy of the country. jMr. President, if it be 
an inconsistency to hold an opinion upon a sub- 
ject at one time and in one state of circum- 
stances, and to hold a different opinion upon the 
same subject at another time and in a different 
state of circumstances, I admit the charge. 
Nay, Sir, I will go further; and in regard to 
questions which, from their nature, do not de- 
pend upon circumstances for their true and just 
solution, I mean constitutional questions, if it be 
an inconsistency to hold an opinion to-day, even 
upon such a question, and on that same ques- 
tion to hold a different opinion a quarter of a 
century afterwards, upon a more comprehensive 
view of the whole subject, with a more thorough 
investigation into the original purposes and ob- 
jects of that Constitution, and especially after a 
more thorough exposition of those objects and 
purposes b^' those who framed it, and have been 
trusted to administer it, I should not shrink 
even from that imputation. I hope I know 
more of the Constitution of my country than I 
did when I was twenty years old. I hope I have 
contemplated its great objects more broadly. I 
hope I have read with deeper interest the senti- 
ments of the great men who framed it. I hope 
I have studied with more care the condition of 
the country when the convention assembled to 
form it. And yet I do not know that I have 
much to retract or to change on these points. 

"But, Sir, I am of the opinion of a very 
eminent person, who had occasion, not long 
since, to speak of this topic in another place. 
Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes 
of circumstances, are often justifiable. But 



there is one sort of inconsistency which is cul- 
pable. It is the inconsistency between a man's 
conviction and his vote; between his conscience 
and his conduct. No man shall ever charge me 
with an inconsistency like that. And now. Sir, 
allow me to say, that I am quite indifferent, or 
rather thankful, to those conductors of the pub- 
lic press wiio think they cannot do better than 
now and then to spread my poor opinions before 
the public. 

" 1 have said many times, and it is true, that, 
up to the year ]824," the people of that part of 
the countr\' to which I belong, being addicted 
to commerce, having been successful in com- 
merce, their eajiital being very much engaged 
in commerce, were averse to entering upon a 
system of manufacturing operations. Every 
member in Congress from the State of Massa- 
chusetts, with the exception, I think, of one, 
voted against the act of 1824. But what were 
we to do V Were we not bound, after 1817 and 
1824, to consider that the policy of the country 
was settled, had become settled, as a policy, to 
protect the domestic industry of the country by 
solemn laws V The leading speech i which 
ushered in the act of 1824 was called a speech 
for the 'American System.' The bill was car- 
ried principally by the Middle States. Penn- 
sylvania and New York would have it so ; and 
what were we to do? Were we to stand aloof 
from the occupations which others were pursuing 
around us ? Were we to pick clean teeth on a 
constitutional doubt which a majority in the 
councils of the nation had overruled? 'No, Sir; 
we had no option. All that was left us was to 
fall in with the settled policy of the country; 
because, if ai^y thing can ever settle the policv 
of the country, or if any thing can ever settle 
the practical construction of tiie Constitution of 
the country, it must be these repeated decisions 
of Congress, and enactments of successive laws 
conformable to these decisions. New England, 
then, did fall in. She went into manufactur- 
ing operations, not from original choice, but 
from the necessity of the circumstances in 
which the legislation of the country had placed 
her. And, for one, I resolved then, and have 
acted upon the resolution ever since, that, hav- 
ing compelled the Eastern States to go into 
these pursuits for a livelihood, the country' was 
bound to fulfil the just expectations which it 
had inspired." 

» That of Mr. Clay. 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



AN ARGUMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN, IN THE 
SUPREME COURT 6f THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY TERM, 1824. 



[This was an appeal from the Court for 
the Trial of Iiiipcachmcnts and Correc- 
tion of Errors of tlie State of New York. 
Aaron Ogden filed his bill in the Court of 
Ciianccry of that State, against Thomas 
Cibbons, setting forth the several acts of 
the legislature thereof, enacted for the pur- 
l)ose of securing to Robert U. Livingston 
and Robert Fulton the exclusive navigation 
of all the waters within the jurisdiction of 
that State, with boats moved by fire or 
steam, for a term of years which had not 
then expired ; and authorizing the Chan- 
cellor to award an injunction, restraining 
any person whatever from navigating those 
waters with boats of that descripti(m. The 
bill stated an assignment froin Livingston 
and Fulton to one John R. Livingston, and 
from him to the complainant, Ugden, of 
the right to navigate the waters between 
Elizabetlitown, and other places in New 
Jersey, and the city of New Y^ork ; and that 
Cibbons, the defendant below, was in pos- 
session of two steamboats, called the Stou- 
dinger and the Rellona, which were actually 
employed in running between New Y'ork 
and Elizabethtown, in violation of the ex- 
clusive privilege conferred on the complain- 
ant, and praying an injunction to restrain 
the said (Jihbons from using the said boats, 
or any other propelled by fire or steam, in 
navigating the waters within the territory 
of New York. 

The injunction liaving been awarded, the 
answer of (iibbons was filed, in which he 
stated, that the boats employed by him 
were duly enrolled and licensed to be em- 
ployed in carrying on the coasting trade, 
umier the act of Congress, passed the Ibth 
of February, 170:',, ch. 8, entitled, " An Act 
for enrolling and licensing shijjs and vessels 
to be employed in the coasting trade and 
fisheries, and for regulating the same." 
And the defendant insisted on his right, in 
virtue of such licenses, to navigate the 
waters between Elizabethtown and the city 
of New York, the said acts of the legisla- 
ture of the Slate of New York to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. At the hearing, the 
Chancellor perpetuated the injunction, be- 



ing of the opinion that the said acts were 
not repugnant to the Constitution and laws 
of the United States, and were valid. This 
decree was afiirmed in the Court for the 
Trial of Impeachments and Correction of 
Errors, winch is the highest court of law 
and equity in the State of New York be- 
fore which the cause could be carried, and 
it was thereupon carried up to the Supreme 
Court of the United States by appeal. 

The following argument was made by 
Mr. Webster, for the plaintiff in error.] 

It is admitted, that there is a very re- 
spectable weight of authority in favor 
of the decision which is sought to be 
reversed. The laws in question, I am 
aware, have been deliberately re-enacted 
by the legislature of New York; and 
they have also received tiie sanction, 
at different times, of all her judicial 
tribunals, than which there are few, if 
any, in the country, more justly entitled 
to respect and deference. The disposi- 
tion of the court will be, undoubtedly, 
to support, if it can, laws so passed and 
so sanctioned. I admit, therefore, that 
it is justly expected of us that we should 
make out a clear case; and unless we do 
so, we cannot hope for a reversal. It 
should be remembered, however, that 
the whole of this branch of power, as 
exercised by this court, is a power of 
revision. The question must be decide<l 
by th(i State courts, and decided in a 
particular manner, before it can be 
brought here at all. Such decisions 
alone give this court jurisdiction; and 
therefore, while they are to be -respected 
as the judgments of h-arned judges, they 
are vet in the condition of all decisions 
froiii which the law allows an appeal. 



112 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



It will not be a waste of time to ad- 
vert to the existing state of the facts 
connected with the subject of this liti- 
gation. The use of steamboats on the 
coasts and in tlie bays and rivers of the 
country, has become very general. The 
intercourse of its different parts essen- 
tially depends upon this mode of con- 
veyance and transportation. Rivers and 
bays, in many cases, form the divisions 
between States ; and thence it is obvious, 
that, if the States should make regula- 
tions for the navigation of these waters, 
and such regulations should be repug- 
nant and hostile, embarrassment would 
necessarily be caused to the general 
intercourse of the community. Such 
events have actually occurred, and have 
created the existing state of things. 

By the law of New York, no one can 
navigate the bay of New York, the North 
River, the Sound, the lakes, or any of 
the waters of that State, by steam-ves- 
sels, without a license from the grantees 
of New York, under penalty of forfeit- 
ure of the vessel. 

By the law of the neighboring State 
of Connecticut, no one can enter her 
waters with a steam- vessel having such 
license. 

By the law of New Jersey, if any citi- 
zen of that State shall be restrained, 
under the New Y'^ork law, from using 
steamboats between the ancient shores 
of New Jersey and New York, he shall 
be entitled to an action for damages, in 
New Jersey, with treble costs against 
the party who thus restrains or impedes 
him under the law of New York ! This 
act of New Jersey is called an act of 
retortion against the illegal and op- 
pressive legislation of New Y''ork; and 
seems to be defended on those grounds 
of public law which justify reprisals be- 
tween independent States. 

It will hardly be contended, that all 
these acts are consistent with the laws 
and Constitution of the United States. 
If there is no power in the general gov- 
ernment to control this extreme bel- 
ligerent legislation of the States, the 
powers of the government are essentially 
deficient in a most important and inter- 
esting paiticular. The present contro- 



versy respects the earliest of these State 
laws, those of New Y'ork. On these, 
this court is now to pronounce; and if 
they should be declared to be valid and 
operative, I hope somebody will point 
out where the State right stops, and on 
what grounds the acts of other States 
are to be held inoperative and void. 

It will be necessary to advert more 
pai'ticularly to the laws of New York, 
as they are stated in the record. The 
first was passed March 19th, 1787. By 
this act, a sole and exclusive right was 
granted to John Fitch, of making and 
using every kind of boat or vessel im- 
pelled by steam, in all creeks, rivers, 
bays, and waters within the territory 
and jurisdiction of New l''ork for four- 
teen years. 

On the 27th of March, 1798, an act 
was passed, on the suggestion that Fitch 
was dead, or had withdrawn from the 
State without having made any attempt 
to use his privilege, repealing the grant 
to him, and conferring similar privileges 
on Robert R. Livingston, for the term of 
twenty years, on a suggestion, made by 
him, that he was possessor of a mode of 
applying the steam-engine to propel a 
boat, on new and advantageous prin- 
ciples. On the 5th of April, 1803, an- 
other act was passed, by which it was 
declared, that the rights and privileges 
granted to Robert R. Livingston by the 
last act should be extended to him and 
Robert Fulton, for twenty years from 
the passing of the act. Then there is 
the act of April 11, 1808, purporting to 
extend the monopoly, in point of time, 
five years for every additional boat, the 
whole duration, however, not to exceed 
thirty j'ears ; and forbidding any and all 
persons to navigate the waters of the 
State with any steam boat or vessel, 
without the license of Livingston and 
Fulton, under penalty of forfeiture of 
the boat or vessel. And lastly comes 
the act of April 9, 1811, for enforcing 
the provisions of the last-mentioned act, 
and declaring, that the forfeiture of the 
boat or vessel found navigating against 
the provisions of the previous acts shall 
be deemed to accrue on the day on which 
such boat or vessel should navigate the 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



113 



waters of the State; and that Living- 
ston and Fulton niiglit immediately have 
an action for such boat or vessel, in like 
manner as if they themselves had been 
dispossessed thereof by force ; and that, 
on bringing any such suit, the defendant 
therein should be prohibited, by injunc- 
tion, from removing the boat or vessel 
out of the State, or using it within the 
State. There are one or two other acts 
mentioned in tlie pleadings, which prin- 
cipally respect the time allowed for com- 
plying with the condition of the grant, 
and are not material to the discussion of 
the case. 

By these acts, then, an exclusive right 
is given to Livingston and Fulton to use 
steam navigation on all the waters of 
New York, for thirty years from 1808. 

It is not necessary to recite the sev- 
eral conveyances and agreements, stated 
in the record, by which Ogden, the plain- 
tiff below, derives title under Living- 
ston and Fulton to the exclusive use 
of part of these waters for steam navi- 
gation. 

The appellant being owner of a steam- 
boat, and being found navigating the 
waters between New Jersey and the city 
of New York, over which waters Ogden, 
the plaintiff below, claims an exclusive 
right, under Livingston and Fulton, this 
bill was filed against him by Ogden, 
in October, 1818, and an injunction 
granted, restraining him from such use 
of his boat. This injunction was made 
perpetual, on the final hearing of the 
cause, in the Court of Chancery; and 
the decree of the Chancellor has been 
duly affirmed in the Court of Errors. 
The right, therefore, which the plaintiff 
below asserts, to have and maintain his 
injunction, depends obviously on the 
general validity of the New York laws, 
and especially on their force and opera- 
tion as against the right set up by the 
defendant. This right he states in his 
answer to be, that he is a citizen of New 
Jersey, and owner of the steamboat in 
question; that the boat is a vessel of 
more than twenty tons burden, duly en- 
rolled and licensed for carrying on the 
coasting trade, and intended to be em- 
ployed by him in that trade, between 



Elizabeth town, in New Jersey, and the 
city of New York ; and that it was ac- 
tually employed in navigating between 
those places at the time of, and until 
notice of, the injunction from the Court 
of Chancery was served on him. 

On these pleadings the substantial 
question is raised. Are these laws such 
as the legislature of New York has a 
right to pass? If so, do they, secondly, 
in their operation, interfere with any 
right enjoyed under the Constitution and 
laws of the United States, and are they 
therefore void, as far as such interfer- 
ence extends? 

It may be well to state again their 
general purport and effect, and the pur- 
port and effect of the other State laws 
which have been enacted by way of re- 
taliation. 

A steam-vessel, of any description, 
going to New Y'^ork, is forfeited to the 
representatives of Livingston and Ful- 
ton, unless she have their license. Going 
from New York or elsewhere to Con- 
necticut, she is pronibited from entering 
the waters of that State if she have such 
license. 

If the representatives of Livingston 
and Fulton in New York carry into ef- 
fect, by judicial process, the provision 
of the New York laws, against any citi- 
zen of New Jersey, they expose them- 
selves to a statute action in New Jersey 
for all damages, and treble costs. 

The New York laws extend to all 
steam-vessels; to steam frigates, steam 
ferry-boats, and all intermediate classes. 
They extend to public as well as private 
ships; and to vessels employed in for- 
eign commerce, as well as to those em- 
ployed in the coasting trade. 

The remedy is as summary as the 
grant itself is ample; for innnediate 
confiscation, without seizure, trial, or 
judgment, is the penalty of infringe- 
ment. 

In regard to these acts, I shall con- 
tend, in the first place, that they exceed 
the power of the legislature; and, sec- 
ondly, that, if they could be considered 
valid for any puriwse, they are void 
still, as against any right enjoyed under 
the laws of the United States with which 



114 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



they come in collision ; and that in this 
case they are found interfering with such 
rights. 

I shall contend that the power of Con- 
gress to regulate commerce is complete 
and entire, and, to a certain extent, 
necessarily exclusive; that the acts in 
question are regulations of commerce, 
in a most important particular, af- 
fecting it in those respects in which 
it is under the exclusive authority of 
Congress. I state this first proposi- 
tion guardedly. I do not mean to 
say, that all regulations which may, in 
their operation, affect commerce, are ex- 
clusively in the power of Congress ; but 
that such power as has been exercised 
in this case does not remain with the 
States. Nothing is more complex than 
commerce; and in sixch an age as this, 
no words embrace a wider field than 
commercial regulation. Almost all the 
business and intercourse of life may be 
connected incidentally, more or less, 
with commercial regulations. But it is 
only necessary to apply to this part of 
the Constitution the well-settled rules of 
construction. Some powers are held to 
be exclusive in Congi-ess, from the use 
of exclusive words in the grant; others, 
from the prohibitions on the States to 
exercise similar powers; and others, 
again, from the nature of the powers 
themselves. It has been by this mode 
of reasoning that the court has adjudi- 
cated many important questions; and 
the same mode is jjroper here. And, as 
some powers have been held to be exclu- 
sive, and others not so, under the same 
form of expression, from the nature of 
the different powers respectively; so 
where the power, on any one subject, is 
given in general words, like the power 
to regulate commerce, the true method 
of construction will be to consider of 
what parts the grant is composed, and 
which of those, from the nattire of the 
thing, ought to be considered exclusive. 
The right set up in this case, under the 
laws of New York, is a monopoly. Now 
I think it very reasonable to say, that 
the Constitution never intended to leave 
with the States the power of granting 
monopolies either of trade or of naviga- 



tion ; and therefore, that, as to this, the 
commercial power is exclusive in Con- 
gress. 

It is in vain to look for a precise and 
exact dejinition of the powers of Con- 
gress on several subjects. The Consti- 
tution does not undertake the task of 
making such exact definitions. In con- 
ferring powers, it proceeds by the way 
of enumeration., stating the powers con- 
ferred, one after another, in few words ; 
and where the power is general or com- 
plex in its nature, the extent of the 
grant must necessarily be judged of, and 
limited, by its object, and by the nature 
of the power. 

Few things are better known than the 
immediate causes which led to the adop- 
tion of the present Constitution; and 
there is nothing, as I think, clearer, than 
that the prevailing motive was to regu- 
late commerce ; to rescue it from the em- 
barrassing and destructive consequences 
resulting from the legislation of so many 
different States, and to place it under 
the protection of a uniform law. The 
great objects were commerce and reve- 
nue ; and they were objects indissolubly 
connected. By the Confederation, divers 
restrictions had been imposed on the 
States; but these had not been found 
sufficient. No State, it is true, could 
send or receive an embassy; nor make 
any treaty ; nor enter into any compact 
with another State, or with a foreign 
power; nor lay duties interfering with 
treaties which had been entered into by 
Congress. But all these were found to 
be far short of what the actual condition 
of the country required. The States 
could still, each for itself, regulate 
commerce, and the consequence was a 
perpetual jarring and hostility of com- 
mercial regulation. 

In the history of the times, it is ac- 
cordingly found, that the great topic, 
m-ged on all occasions, as showing the 
necessity of a new and different govern- 
ment, was the state of trade and com- 
merce. To benefit and improve these 
was a great object in itself; and it be- 
came greater when it was regarded as the 
only means of enabling the country to 
pay the public debt, and to do justice to 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



115 



those who liad most effectually labored 
for its independence. The leading state 
papers of the time are full of this topic. 
Tiie New Jersey resolutions^ complain 
that the regulation of trade was in the 
power of the several States, within their 
separate jurisdiction, to such a degree 
as to involve many dilliculties and em- 
barrassments ; and they express an ear- 
nest opinion, that the sole and exclusive 
power of regulating trade with foreign 
states ought to be in Congress. Mr. 
^Vitherspoon's motion in Congress, in 
1781, is of the same general character; 
and the report of a committee of that 
body, in 1785, is still more emphatic. 
It declares that Congress ought to pos- 
sess the sole and exclusive power of 
regulating trade, as well with foreign 
nations as between the States. ^ The 
resolutions of Vii-giuia, in January, 
1786, which were the immediate cause 
of the Convention, put forth this same 
great object. Indeed, it is the only ob- 
ject stated in those resolutions. There 
is not another idea in the whole docu- 
ment. The sole purpose for which the 
delegates assembled at Annapolis was to 
devise means for the uniform regulation 
of trade. They found no means but in 
a general government; and they recom- 
mended a convention to accomplish that 
purpose. Over whatever other interests 
of the country this government may 
diffuse its benefits and its blessings, it 
will always be true, as matter of histor- 
ical fact, that it had its immediate origin 
in the necessities of commerce ; and for 
its immediate object, the relief of those 
necessities, by removing their causes, 
and by establishing a uniform and steady 
system. It will be easy to show, by 
reference to the discussions in the sev- 
eral State conventions, the prevalcmce of 
the same general topics; and if any one 
•would look to the proceedings of several 
of the States, especially to those of 
Massachusetts and New York, he would 
see very plainly, by the recorded lists 
of votes, that wherever this coinmer- 
cial necessity was most strongly felt, 
there the proposed new Constitution had 

1 1 Laws U. S., p. 28, Bioren and Duane's ed. 

2 1 Laws U. S., p. 50. 



most friends. In the New York con- 
vention, the argument arising from 
this consideration was strongly jjressed, 
by the distinguished person ^ whose 
name is connected with the present ques- 
tion. 

We do not find, in the history of the 
formation and adoi)tion of the Constitu- 
tion, that any man speaks of a general 
concurrent power, in the regulation of 
foreign and domestic trade, as still re- 
siding in the States. The very object 
intended, more than any other, was to 
take away such power. If it had not so 
provided, the Constitution would not 
have been worth accepting. 

I contend, therefore, that the people 
intended, in establishing the Constitu- 
tion, to transfer from the several States 
to a general government those high and 
important powers over commerci!, which, 
in their exercise, were to maintain a 
uniform and general system. From the 
very nature of the case, these powers 
must be exclusive; that is, the higher 
branches of commercial regulation must 
be exclusively committed to a single 
hand. What is it that is to be regu- 
lated? Not the commerce of the several 
States, respectively, but the commerce 
of the United States. Henceforth, the 
commerce of the States was to be a unil ; 
and the system by which it was to exist 
and be governed must necessarily be 
complete, entire, and uniform. Its char- 
acter was to be described in the flag 
which waved over it, E plukibus unum. 
Now, how could individual States assert 
a right of concurrent legislation, in a 
case of this sort, without manifest en- 
croachment and confusion? It should 
be repeated, that the words used in the 
Constitution, "to regulate commerce,'" 
are so very general and extensive, tliat 
they may be construed to cover a vast 
field of legislation, part of which lias 
always been occupied by State laws; and 
therefore the words must have a reason- 
able construction, and the power should 
be considered as exclusively vested in 
Congress so far, and so far only, as the 
nature of the power requires. And I 
insist, that the nature of the case, ami 
8 Chancellor Livingston. 



116 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



of the power, did imperiously require, 
that such important authority as that of 
granting monojiolies of trade and navi- 
gation sliould not be considered as still 
retained by the States. 

It is apparent from the prohibitions 
on the power of the States, that the 
general concurrent power was not sup- 
posed to be left with them. And the 
excejation out of these prohibitions of 
the inspection laws proves this still 
more clearly. Which most concerns 
the commerce of this country, that New 
York and Virginia should have an un- 
controlled power to establish their in- 
spection of flour and tobacco, or that 
they should have an uncontrolled power 
of granting either a monopoly of trade 
in their own ports, or a monopoly of 
navigation over all the waters leading to 
tliose ports? Yet the argument on the 
other side must be, that, although the 
Constitution has sedulously guarded and 
limited the first of these powers, it has 
left the last wholly unlimited and un- 
controlled. 

But although much has been said, in 
the discussion on former occasions, about 
this supposed concurrent power in the 
States, I find great difficulty in under- 
standing what is meant by it. It is 
generally qualified by saying, that it is 
a power by which the States could pass 
laws on subjects of commercial regula- 
tion, which would be valid until Con- 
gress should pass other laws controlling 
them, or inconsistent with them, and 
that then the State laws must yield. 
What sort of concurrent powers are 
these, which cannot exist together? In- 
deed, the very reading of the clause in 
the Constitution must put to flight this 
notion of a general concurrent power. 
The Constitution was formed for all the 
States ; and Congress was to have power 
to regulate commerce. Now, what is 
the import of this, but that Congress is 
to give the rule, to establish the system, 
to exercise the control over the subject? 
And can more than one power, in cases 
of this sort, give the rule, establish the 
system, or exercise the control? As it 
is not contended that the power of Con- 
gress is to be exercised by a supervision 



of State legislation, and as it is clear 
that Congress is to give the general rule, 
I contend that this power of giving the 
general rule is transferred, by the Con- 
stitution, from the States to Congress, 
to be exercised as that body may see fit ; 
and consequently, that all those high 
exercises of power, which might be 
considered as giving the rule, or estab- 
lishing the system, in regard to great 
commercial interests, are necessarily left 
with Congress alone. Of this character 
I consider monopolies of trade or navi- 
gation ; embargoes ; the system of navi- 
gation laws ; the countervailing laws, as 
against foreign states; and other im- 
portant eiiactments respecting our con- 
nection with such states. It appears to 
me a most reasonable construction to 
say, that in these respects the power of 
Congress is exclusive, from the nature 
of the power. If it be not so, where is 
the limit, or who shall fix a boundary 
for the exercise of the power of the 
States? Can a State grant a monopoly 
of trade? Can New York shut her 
ports to all but her own citizens? Can 
she refuse admission to ships of particu- 
lar nations? The argument on the other 
side is, and must be, that she might do 
all these things, until Congress should 
revoke her enactments. And this is 
called concurrent legislation ! What con- 
fusion such notions lead to is obvious 
enough. A power in the States to do 
any thing, and every thing, in regard to 
commerce, till Congress shall undo it, 
would suppose a state of things at least 
as bad as that which existed before the 
present Constitution. It is the true wis- 
dom of these governments to keep their 
action as distinct as possible. The 
general government should not seek to 
operate where the States can operate 
with more advantage to the community ; 
nor should the States encroach on 
ground which the public good, as well 
as the Constitution, refers to the exclu- 
sive control of Congress. 

If the present state of things, these 
laws of New York, the laws of Con- 
necticut, and the laws of New Jersey, 
had been all presented, in the conven- 
tion of New York, to the eminent per- 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



117 



son whose name is on this record, and 
who acted on that occasion so important 
apart; if he hud been told, that, after 
all he had said in favor of the new gov- 
ernment, and of its salutary effects on 
commercial regulations, the time would 
yet come when the North River would 
be shut up by a monopoly from New 
York, the Sound interdicted by a penal 
law of Connecticut, reprisals authorized 
by New Jersey against citizens of New 
York, and when one could not cross a 
ferry without transshipment, does any 
one suppose he would have admitted all 
this as compatible with the government 
which he was recommending? 

This doctrine of a general concurrent 
power in the States is insidious and 
dangerous. If it be admitted, no one 
can say where it will stop. The States 
may legislate, it is said, wherever Con- 
gress has not made a plenary exercise of 
its power. But who is to judge whether 
Congress has made this plenary exercise 
of power? Congress has acted on this 
power; it has done all that it deemed 
wise; and are the States now to do 
whatever Congress has left undone? 
Congress makes such rules as, in its 
judgment, the case requires; and those 
rules, whatever they are, constitute the 
system. 

All useful regulation does not consist 
in restraint; and that which Congress 
sees fit to leave free is a part of its regu- 
lation, as much as the rest. 

The practice under the Constitution 
sufficiently evinces, that this portion of 
the commercial power is exclusive in 
Congress. When, before this instance, 
have the States granted monopolies? 
When, until now, have they interfered 
with the navigation of the country? 
The pilot laws, tiie health laws, or quar- 
antine laws, and various regulations of 
that class, which have been recognized 
by Congress, are no arguments to prove, 
even if they are to be called commercial 
regulations (which they are not), that 
other regulations, more directly and 
strictly commercial, are not solely with- 
in the power of Congi-ess. There is a 
singular fallacy, as I venture to think, 
in the argimaent of very learned and 



most respectable persons on this sub- 
ject. That argument alleges, that the 
States have a concurrent power with 
Congress of regulating commerce; and 
the proof of this position is, that the 
States have, without any question of their 
right, passed acts respecting turnpike- 
roads, toll-bridges, and ferries. 1'hese 
are declared to be acts of commercial 
regulation, affecting not only tiie in- 
terior commerce of the State itself, but 
also commerce between different States. 
Therefore, as all these are commercial 
regulations, and are yet acknowledged 
to be rightfully established by the States, 
it follows, as is supposed, that the States 
must have a concurrent power to regulate 
commerce. 

Now, what is the inevitable conse- 
quence of this mode of reasoning? 
Does it not admit the power of Con- 
gress, at once, upon all these minor ob- 
jects of legislation? If all these be 
regulations of commerce, w'ithin the 
meaning of the Constitution, then cer- 
tainly Congress, having a concurrent 
power to regulate commerce, may estab- 
lish ferries, turnpike-roads, and bridges, 
and proAnde for all this detail of interior 
legislation. To sustain the interference 
of the State in a high concern of mari- 
time commerce, the argument adopts a 
principle which acknowledges the right 
of Congress over a vast scope of internal 
legislation, which no one has heretofore 
supposed to be within its powers. But 
this is not all; for it is admitted that, 
when Congress and the States have 
power to legislate over the same subject, 
the power of Congress, when exercised, 
controls or extinguishes the State power ; 
and therefore the consequence would 
seem to follow, from the argument, that 
all State legislation over such subjects 
as have been mentioned is, at all times, 
liable to the superior power of Congress; 
a consequence which no one would ad- 
mit for a moment. The truth is, in my 
judgment, that all these things are, in 
their general character, rather regula- 
tions of police tiian of connncrce, in 
the constitutional understanding of that 
term. A road, indeed, may Ik? a inatt»>r 
of great commercial concern. In many 



118 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



cases it is so ; and when it is so, there is 
no doubt of the power of Cong^-ess to 
make it. But, generally speaking, roads, 
and bridges, and ferries, though of course 
they affect commerce and intercourse, do 
not possess such importance and eleva- 
tion as to be deemed commercial regula- 
tions. A reasonable construction must 
be given to the Constitution ; and such 
construction is as necessary to the just 
power of the States, as to the authority 
of Congress. Quarantine laws, for ex- 
ample, may be considered as aifecting 
commerce; yet they are, in their nature, 
health laws. In England, we speak of 
the power of regulating commerce as in 
Parliament, or the king, as arbiter of 
commerce ; yet the city of London enacts 
health laws. Would any one infer from 
that circumstance, that the city of Lon- 
don had concurrent power with Parlia- 
ment or the crown to regulate commerce? 
or that it might grant a monopoly of 
the navigation of the Thames'? While 
a health law is reasonable, it is a health 
law; but if, under color of it, enact- 
ments should be made for other pur- 
poses, such enactments might be void. 

In the discussion in the New York 
courts, no small reliance was placed on 
the law of that State prohibiting the 
importation of slaves, as an example 
of a commercial regulation enacted by 
State authority. That law may or may 
not he constitutional and valid. It 
has been referred to generally, but its 
particular provisions have not been 
stated. When they are more clearly 
seen, its character may be better deter- 
mined. 

It might further be argued, that the 
power of Congress over these high 
branches of commerce is exclusive, 
from the consideration that Congress 
possesses an exclusive admiralty juris- 
diction. That it does possess such 
exclusive jurisdiction will hardly be 
contested. No State pretends to exer- 
cise any jurisdiction of that kind. The 
States abolished their courts of admi- 
ralty, when the Constitution went into 
operation. Over these waters, there- 
fore, or at least some of them, which 
are the subject of this monopoly, New 



York has no jurisdiction whatever. 
They are a part of the high seas, and 
not within the body of any county. 
The autliorities of that State could not 
punish for a murder, committed on 
board one of these boats, in some places 
within the range of this exclusive grant. 
This restraining of the States from all 
jurisdiction out of the body of their own 
counties, shows jjlainly enough that 
navigation on the high seas was under- 
stood to be a matter to be regulated 
only by Congress. It is not unreason- 
able to say, that what are called the 
waters of New York are, for purposes 
of navigation and commercial regula- 
tion, the waters of the United States. 
There is no cession, indeed, of the 
waters themselves, but their use for 
those purposes seems to be intrusted to 
the exclusive power of Congress. Sev- 
ei'al States have enacted laws which 
would appear to imply their conviction 
of the power of Congress over navigable 
waters to a greater extent. 

If there be a concurrent power of 
regulating commerce on the high seas, 
there must be a concurrent admiralty 
jurisdiction, and a concurrent control of 
the waters. It is a common principle, 
that arms of the sea, including naviga- 
ble rivei'S, belong to the sovereign, so 
far as navigation is concerned. Their 
use is navigation. The United States 
possess the general power over naviga- 
tion, and, of course, ought to control, in 
general, the use of navigable waters. If 
it be admitted that, for purposes of trade 
and navigation, the North River and its 
bay are the river and bay of New York, 
and the Chesapeake the bay of Vir- 
ginia, very great inconveniences and 
much confusion might be the result. 

It may now be well to take a nearer 
view of these laws, to see more exactly 
what their provisions are, what conse- 
quences have followed from them, and 
what would and might follow from other 
similar laws. 

The first grant to John Fitch gave 
him the sole and exclusive right of 
making, employing, and navigating all 
boats impelled by fire or steam, " in all 
creeks, rivers, bays, and waters within 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



119 



the territory and jurisdiction of the 
State." Any other person navigating 
such boat was to forfeit it, and to pay 
a penalty of a hundred pounds. The 
subsequent acts repeal tliis, and grant 
similar privileges to Livingston and 
Fulton; and the act of 1811 provides 
the extraordinary and summary remedy 
which has been already stated. The 
liver, the bay, and the marine league 
along the shore, are all within tlie scope 
of this grant. Any vessel, therefore, of 
this description, coming into any of 
those waters, without a license, whether 
from another State or from abroad, 
whether it be a public or private vessel, 
is instantly forfeited to the grantees of 
the monopoly. 

Now it must be remembered that this 
grant is made as an exercise of sov- 
ereign political power. It is not an in- 
spection law, nor a health law, nor 
passed by any derivative authority ; it is 
professedly an act of sovereign power. 
Of course, there is no limit to the 
power, to be derived from the purpose 
for which it is exercised. If exercised 
for one purpose, it may be also for an- 
other. No one can inquire into the 
motives which influence sovereign au- 
thority. It is enough that such power 
manifests its will. The motive alleged 
in this case is, to remunerate the gran- 
tees for a benefit conferred by them on 
the public. But there is no necessary 
connection between that benefit and 
this mode of rewarding it ; and if the 
State could gi-ant this monopoly for 
that purpose, it could also grant it for 
any other purpose. It could make the 
grant for money; and so make the mo- 
nopoly of navigation over those waters 
a direct source of revenue. When this 
monopoly shall expire, in ls;58, the 
State may continue it, for any pecuni- 
ary consideration which the holders 
may see fit to offer, and the State to 
receive. 

If the State may grant this monopoly, 
it may also grant another, for other 
descriptions of vessels; for instance, for 
aU sloops. 

If it can grant these exclusive privi- 
leges to a few, it may grant them to 



many; that is, it may grant them to all 
its own citizens, to the exclusion of 
everybody else. 

But the waters of New York are no 
more the subject of exclusive grants by 
tliat State, than the waters of other 
States are subjects of such grants by 
those other States. Virginia may W(!!l 
exerci.se, over the entrance of the Ches- 
apeake, all the power that New York 
can exercise over the bay of New York, 
and the waters on her shores. Tlie 
Chesapeake, therefore, upon the prin- 
ciple of these laws, may be the subject 
of State monopoly ; and so may the bay 
of Massachusetts. But this is not all. 
It requires no greater power to grant a 
monopoly of trade, than a monopoly of 
navigation. Of course. New York, if 
these acts can be maintained, may give 
an exclusive right of entry of vessels 
into her ports; and the other States 
may do the same. These are not ex- 
treme cases. We have only to suppose 
that other States should do what New 
York has already done, and that the 
power should be carried to its full 
extent. 

To all this, no answer is to be given 
but one, that the concurrent power of 
the States, concurrent though it be, is 
yet subordinate to the legislation of 
Congress; and that therefore Congress 
may, whenever it pleases, annul the 
State legislation; but until it does so 
annul it, the State legislation is valid 
and effectual. What is there to recom- 
mend a construction which leads to a 
result like this? Here would be a per- 
petual hostility; one legislature enact- 
ing laws, till another legislature should 
repeal them; one sovereign power giv- 
ing the rule, till another sovereign 
power should abrogate it; and all this 
under the idea of concurrent legislation ! 

But, further, under tiiis concurrent 
power, the State does that wiiich Con- 
gress cannot do; that is, it gives prefer- 
ences to the citizens of some States over 
those of others. I do not mean hero 
the advantages conferred by the grant 
on the grantees; but the disadvantages 
to which it subjects all the other citi- 
zens of New York. To impose an ex- 



120 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



traordinary tax on steam navigation 
visiting the ports of New York, and 
leaving it free everywhere else, is giv- 
ing a preference to the citizens of other 
States over those of New York. This 
Congress could not do; and yet the 
State does it; so that this power, at 
first subordinate, then concurrent, now 
becomes paramount. 

The people of New York have a right 
to be protected against this monopoly. 
It is one of the objects for which tliey 
agi-eed to this Constitution, that they 
should stand on an equality in commer- 
cial regulations ; and if the government 
should not insure them that, the prom- 
ises made to them in its behalf would 
not be performed. 

I contend, therefore, in conclusion on 
this point, that the power of Congress 
over these high branches of commercial 
regulation is shown to be exclusive, by 
considering what was wished and in- 
tended to be done, when the convention 
for forming the Constitution was called ; 
by what was understood, in the State 
conventions, to have been accomplished 
by the instrument ; by the prohibitions 
on the States, and the express excep- 
tion relative to inspection laws ; by the 
nature of the power itself ; by the tei-ms 
used, as connected with the nature of 
the power; by the subsequent under- 
standing and practice, both of Congress 
and the States; by the grant of ex- 
clusive admiralty jurisdiction to the 
federal government; by the manifest 
danger of the opposite doctrine, and the 
ruinous consequences to which it di- 
rectly leads. 

Little is now required to be said, to 
prove that this exclusive grant is a law 
regulating commerce ; although, in some 
of the discussions elsewhere, it has been 
called a law of police. If it be not a 
regulation of commerce, then it follows, 
against the constant admission on the 
other side, that Congress, even by an 
express act, cannot annul or control it. 
For if it be not a regulation of com- 
merce, Congress has no concern with it. 
But the granting of monopolies of this 
kind is always referred to the power over 
commerce. It was as arbiter of com- 



merce that the king formerly granted 
such monopolies.^ This is a law regu- 
lating commerce, inasmuch as it imposes 
new conditions and terms on the coast- 
ing trade, on foreign trade generally, 
and on foreign trade as regulated by 
treaties; and inasmuch as it interferes 
with the free navigation of navigable 
waters. 

If, then, the power of commercial reg- 
ulation possessed by Congress be, in 
regard to the great branches of it, ex- 
clusive ; and if this gi-ant of New York 
be a commercial regulation, affecting 
commerce in respect to these great 
branches, then the gTant is void, whether 
any case of actual collision has happened 
or not. 

But I contend, in the second place, 
that whether the grant were to be re- 
garded as wholly void or not, it must, at 
least, be inoperative, when the rights 
claimed under it come in collision with 
other rights, enjoyed and secured under 
the laws of the United States ; and such 
collision, I maintain, clearly exists in 
this case. It will not be denied that the 
law of Congress is paramount. The 
Constitution has exjpressly provided for 
that. So that the only question in this 
part of the case is, whether the two 
rights be inconsistent with each other. 
The appellant has a right to go from 
New Jersey to New York, in a vessel 
owned by himself, of the proper legal 
description, and enrolled and licensed 
according to law. This right belongs 
to him as a citizen of the United States. 
It is derived under the laws of the 
United States, and no act of the legis- 
lature of New York can deprive him of 
it, any more than such act could deprive 
him of the right of holding lands in that 
State, or of suing in its courts. It ap- 
pears from the record, that the boat in 
question was regularly enrolled at Perth 
Amboy, and properly licensed for carry- 
ing on the coasting trade. Under this 
enrolment, and with this license, she was 
proceeding to New York, when she was 
stopped by the injunction of the Chan- 

1 1 Black. Com. 273 ; 4 Black. Com. 160. 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



121 



cellor, on the application of the New 
York grantees. There can be no doubt 
that here is a collision, in fact; that 
■which the appellant claimed as a right, 
the respondent resisted; and there re- 
mains nothing now but to determine 
whether the appelhuit had, as he con- 
tends, a right to navigate these waters; 
because, if he luid such right, it must 
prevail. 

Now, this right is expressly conferred 
by the laws of the United States. The 
first section of the act of February, 
1793, ch. 8, regulating the coasthig trade 
and fisheries, declares, that all ships and 
vessels, enrolled and licensed as that 
act provides, "and no others, shall be 
deemed ships or vessels of the United 
States, entitled to the privileges of ships 
or vessels employed in the coasting trade 
or fisheries." The fourth section of the 
same act declares, " thM-, in order to the 
licensing of any ship or vessel, for car- 
rying on the coasting trade or fisheries," 
bond shall be given, according to the 
provisions of the act. And the same 
section declares, that, the owner having 
complied with the requisites of the law, 
" it shall be the duty of the collector to 
grant a license for carrying on the coast- 
ing trade " ; and the act proceeds to give 
the form and words of the license, which 
is, therefore, of com'se, to be received as 
a part of the act ; and the words of the 
license, after the necessary recitals, are, 
" License is hereby granted for the said 
vessel to be employed in carrying on the 
coasting trade. ' ' Words could not make 
this authority more express. 

The court below seems to me, with 
great deference, to have mistaken the 
object and nature of the license. It 
seems to have been of opinion, that the 
license has no other intent or effect than 
to ascertain the ownership and character 
of the vessel. But this is the peculiar 
office and object of the enrolment. That 
document ascertains that the regular 
proof of owaiership and character has 
been given ; and the license is given to 
confer the right to which the party has 
shown himself entitled. It is the au- 
thority which the master carries with 
him, to prove his right to navigate freely 



the waters of tlie United States, and to 
carry on the coasting trade. 

In some of the discussions which have 
been had on this question, it has been 
said, that Congress has only provided for 
ascertaining the ownership and jiroperty 
of vessels, but has not prescril)ed to 
what use they may be applied. But this 
is an obvious error. The whole object 
of the act regulating tlie coasting trade 
is to declare what vessels shall enjoy the 
benefit of being employed in that trade. 
To secure this use to certain vessels, and 
to deny it to others, is precisely the pur- 
pose for which the act was passed,. The 
error, or what I humbly suppose to be 
the error, in the judgment of the court 
below, consLsts in that court's having 
tliought, that, although Congress miglit 
act, it had not yet acted, in such a way 
as to confer a right on the appellant; 
whereas, if a right was not given by this 
law, it never could be given. No law 
can be more express. It has been ad- 
mitted, that, supposing there is a pro- 
vision in the act of Congress, that all 
vessels duly licensed shall be at liberty 
to navigate, for the purpose of trade and 
commerce, all the navigable harbors, 
bays, rivers, and lakes witliin the sev- 
eral States, any law of the States creat- 
ing particular privileges as to any par- 
ticular class of vessels to the contrary 
notwithstanding, the only question that 
could arise, in such a case, would be, 
whether the law was constitutional; and 
that, if that was to be granted or de- 
cided, it would certainly, in all courts 
and places, overrule and set aside the 
State grant. 

Now, I do not see that such supposed 
case could be distinguished from the 
present. We show a provision in an act 
of Congress, that all vessels, duly li- 
censed, may carry on the coasting trade; 
nobody doubts the constitutional valid- 
ity of that law; and we sliow that tliis 
vessel was duly licensed according to its 
provisions. This is all tliat is essential 
in the case supposed. The presence or 
absence of a non obstante clau.se cannot 
affect the extent or oi)orati<)n n[ the act 
of Congress. Congress has no power of 
revoking State laws, as a distinct jxjwer. 



122 



THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 



It legislates over subjects ; and over those 
subjects which are within its power, its 
legislation is supreme, and necessarily 
overrules all inconsistent or repugnant 
State legislation. If Congress were to 
pass an act expressly revoking or annul- 
ling, in whole or in part, this New York 
grant, such an act would be wholly use- 
less and inoperative. If the New York 
grant be opposed to, or inconsistent with, 
any constitutional power which Congress 
has exercised, then, sp far as the incom- 
patibility exists, the grant is nugatory 
and void, necessarily, and by reason of 
the supremacy of the law of Congress. 
But if the grant be not inconsistent with 
any exercise of the powers of Congress, 
then, certainly. Congress has no author- 
ity to revoke or annul it. Such an act 
of Congress, therefore, would be either 
unconstitutional or supererogatory. The 
laws of Congress need no non obstante 
clause. The Constitution makes them 
supreme, when State laws come into 
opposition to them. So that in these 
cases there is no question except this; 
whether there be, or be not, a repug- 
nancy or hostility between the law of 
Congress and the law of the State. Nor 
is it at all material, in this view, whether 
the law of the State be a law regulating 
conmierce, or a law of police, nor by 
what other name or character it may be 
designated. If its provisions be incon- 
sistent with an act of Congress, they 
are void, so far as that inconsistency ex- 
tends. The whole argument, therefore, 
is substantially and effectually given up, 
when it is admitted that Congress might, 
by express terms, abrogate the State 
grant, or declare that it should not stand 
in the way of its own legislation; be- 
cause such express terms would add noth- 
ing to the effect and operation of an act 
of Congress. 

I contend, therefore, upon the whole 
of this point, that a case of actual col- 
lision has been made out between the 
State grant and the act of Congress; 
and as the act of Congress is entirely 
unexceptionable, and clearly in pursu- 
ance of its constitutional powers, the 
State grant must yield. 



There are other provisions of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, which 
have more or less bearing on this ques- 
tion. " No State shall, without the 
consent of Congress, lay any duty of 
tonnage." Under color of grants like 
this, that prohibition might be wholly 
evaded. This grant authoiizes Messrs. 
Livingston and Fulton to license naviga- 
tion in the waters of New York. They, 
of course, license it on their own terms. 
They may require a pecuniary consider- 
ation, ascertained by the tonnage of the 
vessel, or in any other manner. Prob- 
ably, in fact, they govern themselves, in 
this respect, by the size or tonnage of the 
vessels to which they grant licenses. 
Now, what is this but substantially a 
tonnage duty, under the law of the 
State? Or does it make any differ- 
ence, whether the receipts go directly 
into her own treasury, or into the hands 
of those to whom she has made the 
grant ? 

There is, lastly, that provision of the 
Constitution which gives Congress power 
to promote the progress of science and 
the useful arts, by securing to authors 
and inventors, for a limited time, an ex- 
clusive right to their own writings and 
discoveries. Congress has exercised this 
power, and made all the provisions 
which it deemed useful or necessary. 
The States may, indeed, like munificent 
individuals, exercise their own bounty 
towards authors and inventors, at their 
own discretion. But to confer reward 
by exclusive grants, even if it were but 
a part of the use of the writing or inven- 
tion, is not supposed to be a power 
properly to be exercised by the States. 
Much less can they, under the notion of 
conferring rewards in such cases, grant 
monopolies, the enjoyment of which is 
essentially incompatible with the exer- 
cise of rights possessed under the laws 
of the United States. I shall insist, 
however, the less on these points, as they 
are open to counsel who will come after 
me on the same side, and as I have said 
so much upon what appears to me the 
more important and interesting part of 
the argument. 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



AN ADDRESS DELIVERKD AT THE LAYING OF THE CORNER-STONE OF THE 
BUNKER HILL MONUMENT AT CHARLESTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE 
17TU OF JUNE, 1825. 



[As early as 1776, some steps were taken 
toward the comiiu'inoration of the battle of 
Bunker Hill and the fall of General War- 
ren, who was buried upon the hill the day 
after the action. The Massachusett.s Lodge 
of Masons, over which he presided, applied 
to the provisional government of Massachu- 
setts, for permission to take up his remains 
and to bury them with tlie usual solemni- 
ties. The ("ouncil granted this n-quest, on 
condition tliat it sliould be carried into ef- 
fect in such a manner that the government 
of the Colony might have an opportunity to 
erect a monument to his memory. A funeral 
procession was had, and a Eulogy on Gen- 
eral Warren was delivered by Perez Morton, 
but no measures were taken toward build- 
ing a monument. 

A resolution was adopted by the Congress 
of the United States on the 8th of April, 
1777, directing that monuments should be 
erected to the memory of General Warren, 
in Boston, and of General Mercer, at Fred- 
ericksburg; but this resolution has remained 
to the present time unexecuted. 

On the 11th of November, 1704, a com- 
mittee was ajjpointed by King Solomon's 
Lodge, at Charlestown,! to take measures 
for the erection of a monument to the mem- 
ory of General Joseph Warren at the ex- 
pense of the Lodge. This resolution was 
promptly carried into effect. The land for 
this pur])ose was presented to the Lodge by 
the Hon. James Russell, of Charlestown, 
and it was dedicated with aj)propriate cer- 
emonies on the 2d of December, 17'.>4. It 
was a wooden pillar of the Tuscan order, 
eighteen feet in height, raised on a pedestal 
eight feet square, and of an elevation of ten 
feet from the ground. The pillar was sur- 
mounted by a gilt urn. An appropriate in- 
scription was placed on the south side of the 
pedestal. 

In February, 1818, a committee of the 

1 General Warren, at the time of his decease, 
was Grand Master of the Masonic Lodges in 
America. 



legislature of Massachusetts was appoint- 
ed to (;onsidcr the expediency of building a 
monument of American marble of the mem- 
ory of General Warren, but this proposal 
was not carried into effect. 

As the half-century from the date of the 
battle drew toward a close, a stronger feel- 
ing of the duty of commemorating it began 
to be awakened in the connnunity. Among 
those who from the first manifested the 
greatest interest in the subject, was the 
late William Tudor, Esq. He expressed 
the wish, in a letter still ])reserved, to see 
upon the battle-ground " the noblest monu- 
ment in the world," and he was so ardent 
and persevering in urging the project, that 
it has been stated that he first conceived 
the idea of it. The steps taken in execu- 
tion of the project, from the earliest private 
conferences among the gentlemen first en- 
gaged in it to its final compU'tion, are accu- 
rately sketched by Mr. Richard Frothing- 
ham, Jr., in his valuable History of tiie 
Siege of Boston. All the material facts 
contained in this note are ilerived from his 
chapter on the Bunker Hill Monument. 
After giving an accbtuit of the organiza- 
tion of the society, the measures adopted 
for the collection of funds, and the delib- 
erations on the form of the monument, Mr. 
Frothingham proceeds as follows : — 

"It was at this stage of the enterprise that 
the directors proposed to lay the corner-stono of 
the monument, and ground was broken (.luiio 
"111) for tills purpose. .\s a mark of respect to 
the lil)erality and patriotism of Kins .Solomon's 
Lodge, they invited the Grand .Master of llio 
(irand Lodge of Massachusetts to perform llio 
ceremony. Tiiey also invited (Jenerid l.afnyetto 
to accompany the President of the Association, 
Hon. Daniel" Webster, and assist in it. 

•'This celebration was nneqnalli'd in nuiL'nili- 
cence by any thing of the kind that had been 
seen in" New England. The morning proved 
propitious. The air was cool, the sky was 
clear, and timcdy showers the jirevious day iiad 
brightened the Vesture of nature into its love- 
liest hue. Delighted thousands (locked iutu 



124 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



Boston to bear a part in the proeeedinffs, or to 
witness the spectacle. At about ten o'cloclt a 
procession moved from tlie State House towards 
Bunker Hill. The military, in their fine uni- 
forms, formed the van. About two hundred 
veterans of the Itevolutiou, of whom forty were 
survivors of the battle, rode in barouches next to 
the escort. These venerable men, the relics of 
a past sjeneration. with emaciated frames, tot- 
teriuij limbs, and trembling voices, constituted 
a touchini;; spectacle. Some wore, as honorable 
decorations, their old fightinj? equipments, and 
Bome bore the scars of still more honorable 
wounds. Glistening eyes constituted their an- 
swer to the enthusiastic cheers of the grateful 
multitudes who lined their pathway and cheered 
tlieir progress. To this patriot band succeeded 
the Bunker Hill JNlonument Association. Then 
the Masonic fraternity, in their splendid regalia, 
thousands in number. Then Lafaj'ette, con- 
tinually welcomed by tokens of love and grati- 
tude, and the invited guests. Then a long array 
of societies, with their various badges and ban- 
ners. It was a splendid procession, and of such 
length that the front nearly reached Charles- 
town Bridge ere the rear had left Boston Com- 
mon. It proceeded to Breed's Hill, where the 
Grand Master of the Freemasons, the President 
of the Monument Association, and General La- 
fayette, performed the ceremony of laying the 
corner-stone, in the presence of a vast concourse 
of people." 

The procession then moved to a spacious 
amphitlieatre on the northern declivity of 
the hill, when the following address was de- 
livered by Mr. Webster, in the presence of 
as great a multitude as was ever perhaps 
assembled within the sound of a human 
voice.] 

This uncounted multitude before me 
and around me proves the feeling which 
the occasion has excited. These thou- 
sands of human faces, glowing with sym- 
pathy and joy, and from the impulses of 
a common gratitude turned reverently to 
lieaven in this spacious temple of the 
firmament, proclaim that the day, the 
place, and the purpose of our assembling 
have made a deep impression on our 
hearts. 

If, indeed, there be any thing in local 
association fit to aifect the mind of man, 
we need not strive to repress the emo- 
tions which agitate us here. We are 
among the sepulchres of our fathers. 
We are on ground, distinguished by 
their valor, their constancy, and the 
shedding of their blood. We are here, 
not to fix an uncertain date in our an- 
nals, nor to draw into notice an obscure 
and unknown spot. If our hiunhle pur- 
pose had never been conceived, if we 
ourselves had never been born, the 17th 



of June, 1775, would have been a day 
on which all subsequent history would 
have poured its light, and the eminence 
where we stand a point of attraction to 
the eyes of successive generations. But 
we are Americans. We live in what 
may be called the early age of this great 
continent; and we know that our pos- 
terity, through all time, are here to en- 
joy and suffer the allotments of human- 
ity. We see before us a probable train 
of gi'eat events ; we know that our own 
fortunes have been happily cast ; and it 
is natm-al, therefore, that we should be 
moved by the contemplation of occur- 
rences which have guided om- destiny 
before many of us were born, and set- 
tled the condition in which we should 
pass that portion of our existence which 
God allows to men on earth. 

We do not read even of the discovery 
of this continent, without feeling some- 
thing of a personal interest in the event; 
without being reminded how much it 
has affected our own fortunes and our 
own existence. It would be still more 
unnatural for us, therefore, than for 
others, to contemplate with unaifected 
minds that interesting, I may say that 
most touching and pathetic scene, when 
the great discoverer of America stood on 
the deck of his shattered bark, the shades 
of night falling on the sea, yet no man 
sleeping ; tossed on the billows of an 
unknown ocean, yet the stronger bil- 
lows of alternate hope and despair toss- 
ing his own troubled thoughts ; extend- 
ing forward his harassed frame, straining- 
westward his anxious and eager eyes, till 
Heaven at last granted him a moment of 
rapture and ecstasy, in blessing his vision 
with the sight of the unknown world. 

Nearer to our times, more closely con- 
nected with our fates, and therefore still 
more interesting to om* feelings and af- 
fections, is the settlement of our own 
country by colonists from England. We 
cherish every memorial of these worthy 
ancestors ; we celebrate their patience 
and fortitude; we admire their daring 
enterprise ; we teach our children to 
venerate their piety ; and we are justly 
proud of being descended from men who 
have set the world an example of found - 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



125 



ing civil institutions on the great and 
united principles of human freedom and 
human knowledge. To us, their chil- 
dren, the story of their labors and suf- 
ferings can never be without its interest. 
We sliall not stand unmoved on the shore 
of Plymouth, while the sea continues to 
wash it ; nor will our brethren in another 
early and ancient Colony forget the place 
of its first establishment, till their river 
shall cease to flow by it.^ No vigor of 
youth, no maturity of manhood, will 
lead the nation to forget the spots where 
its infancy was cradled and defended. 

But the great event in the history of 
the continent, which we are now met 
here to commemorate, that prodigy of 
modern times, at once the wonder and 
the blessing of the world, is the Ameri- 
can Revolution. In a day of extraordi- 
nary prosperity and happiness, of high 
national honor, distinction, and power, 
we are brought together, in this place, 
by our love of country, by our admira- 
tion of exalted character, by our grati- 
tude for signal services and patriotic 
devotion. 

The Society whose organ I am ^ was 
formed for the purpose of rearing some 
honorable and durable monument to the 
memory of the early friends of Ameri- 
can Independence. They have thought, 
that for this object no time could be 
more propitious than the present pros- 
perous and peaceful period ; tiiat no 
place could claim preference over this 
memorable spot; and that no day could 
be more auspicious to the undertaking, 

1 An interesting account of the voyage of 
the early emigrants to the Maryland Colony, 
and of its settlement, is given in the official re- 
port of Father White, written probably within 
the lirst month after the landing at St. .Mar_v"s. 
The original Latin manuscript is still preserved 
among the archives of the Jesuits at Home. 
The " Ark " and the " Dove " are remembered 
with scarcely loss interest by the descendants 
of the sister colony, than is the "Mayflower" 
in New England, which thirteen ^ears earlier, 
at the same season of the year, bore thither the 
Pilgrim Fathers. 

2 Mr. Webster was at this time President of 
the Bunker Hill Monument Association, chosen 
on tiie decease of Governor John Brooks, the 
first President. 



than the anniversary of the battle which 
was here fought. The foundation of 
that monument we have now laid. 
With solemnities suited to the occa- 
sion, with prayers to Almighty God for 
liis blessing, and in the midst of this 
cloud of witnesses, we have begun the 
work. We trust it will be prosecuted, 
and that, springing from a broad foun- 
dation, rising high in massive solidity 
and unadorned grandeur, it may remain 
as long as Heaven permits the works of 
man to last, a fit emblem, both of the 
events in memory of which it is raised, 
and of the gratitude of those who have 
reared it. 

We know, indeed, that the record of 
illustrious actions is most safely dejws- 
ited in the universal I'emembrance of 
mankind. We know, that if vve could 
cause this structure to ascend, not only 
till it reached the skies, but till it 
pierced them, its broad surfaces could 
still contain but part of tliat which, in 
an age of knowledge, hath already been 
spread over the earth, and which liistory 
charges itself with making known to all 
future times. We know that no inscrip- 
tion on entablatures less broad than the 
earth itself can carry information of tlie 
events we commemorate where it has 
not already gone; and that no structure, 
which shall not outlive the duration of 
letters and knowledge among men, can 
prolong the memorial. But our object 
is, by this edifice, to show our own deep 
sense of the value and im])ortance of the 
achievements of our ancestors; and, by 
presenting this work of gratitude to the 
eye, to keep alive similar sentiments, 
and to foster a constant regard for the 
principles of the Revolution. Human 
beings are composed, not of reason oidy, 
but of imagination also, and sentiment; 
and that is neither wasted nor misap- 
plied wliich is appropriated to the pur- 
pose of giving right direction to senti- 
ments, and opening proper springs of 
feeling in tlie heart. Let it not bo sup- 
posed that our object is to purpt-tuale 
national hostility, or even to cherish 
a mere military spirit. It is higher, 
purer, nobler. We consecrate our work 
to the spiiit of national independence. 



126 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



and we wish that the light of peace may 
rest upon it for ever. We rear a memo- 
rial of our conviction of that unmeas- 
ured benefit which has been conferred 
on our own land, and of the happy in- 
fluences which have been produced, by 
the same events, on the general interests 
of mankind. We come, as Americans, 
to mark a spot which must for ever be 
dear to us and our posterity. W^e wish 
that whosoever, in all coming time, shall 
turn his eye hither, may behold that the 
place is not undistinguished where the 
first great battle of the Revolution was 
fought. We wish that this structure may 
proclaim the magnitude and importance 
of that event to every class and every 
age. We wish that infancy may learn 
the purpose of its erection from mater- 
nal lips, and that weary and withered 
age may behold it, and be solaced by 
the recollections which it suggests. We 
wish that labor may look up here, and 
be proud, in the midst of its toil. We 
wish that, in those days of disaster, 
which, as they come upon all nations, 
must be expected to come upon us also, 
desponding patriotism may turn its eyes 
hitherward, and be assured that the 
foundations of our national power are 
still strong. We wish that this column, 
rising towards heaven among the pointed 
spires of so many temples dedicated to 
God, may contribute also to produce, in 
all minds, a pious feeling of dependence 
and gratitude. We wish, finally, that 
the last object to the sight of him who 
leaves his native shore, and the first to 
gladden his who revisits it, may be 
something which shall remind him of 
the liberty and the glory of his country. 
Let it rise 1 let it rise, till it meet the 
sun in his coming; let the earliest light 
of the morning gild it, and parting day 
linger and play on its summit. 

We live in a most extraordinary age. 
Events so various and so important that 
they might crowd and distinguish cen- 
turies are, in our times, compressed 
within the compass of a single life. 
When has it happened that history has 
had so much to record, in the same term 
of years, as since the 17th of June, 1775? 



Our own Revolution, which, under other 
circumstances, might itself have been 
expected to occasion a war of half a cen- 
tury, has been achieved; twenty-four 
sovereign and independent States erect- 
ed; and a general government estab- 
lished over them, so safe, so wise, so free, 
so practical, that we might well wonder 
its establishment should have been ac- 
complished so soon, were it not far the 
greater wonder that it should have been 
established at all. Two or three mil- 
lions of people have been augmented to 
twelve, the great forests of the West 
prostrated beneath the arm of success- 
ful industry, and the dwellers on the 
banks of the Ohio and the Mississippi be- 
come the fellow-citizens and neighbors 
of those who cultivate the hills of New 
England.^ We have a commerce, that 
leaves no sea unexplored; navies, which 
take no law from superior force; reve- 
nues, adequate to all the exigencies of 
government, almost without taxation; 
and peace with all nations, founded on 
equal rights and mutual respect. 

Europe, within the same period, has 
been agitated by a mighty revolution, 
which, while it has been felt in the in- 
dividual condition and happiness of al- 
most every man, has shaken to the cen- 
tre her political fabric, and dashed 
against one another thrones which had 
stood tranquil for ages. On this, our 
continent, our own example has been 
followed, and colonies have sprung up 
to be nations. Unaccustomed sounds 
of liberty and free government have 
reached us from beyond the track of the 
sun ; and at this moment the dominion 
of European power in this continent, 
from the place where we stand to the 
south pole, is annihilated for ever. 

In the mean time, both in Europe and 

1 That which was spoken of figuratively in 
1825 has, in the lapse of a quarter of a century, 
by the introduction of railroads and telegrapliic 
lines, become a reality. It is an interesting 
circumstance, that tiie first railroad on the 
Western Continent was constructed for the pur- 
pose of accelerating the erection of this monu- 
ment. 

. 2 See President Monroe's Message to Con- 
gress in 1823, and Mr. Webster's speech on the 
Panama Mission, in 1826. 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



127 



America, such has been the general prog- 
ress of knowledge, such the improve- 
ment in legislation, in commerce, in the 
arts, in letters, and, above all, in liberal 
ideas and the general spirit of the age, 
that the whole world seems changed. 

Yet, notwithstanding that this is but 
a faint abstract of the things which 
liave happened since the day of the bat- 
tle of Bunker Hill, we are but fifty 
years removed from it; and we now 
stand here to enjoy all the blessings of 
our own condition, and to look abroad 
on the brightened prospects of the world, 
while we still have among us some of 
those who were active agents in the 
scenes of 1775, and who are now here, 
from every quarter of New England, to 
visit once more, and under circum- 
stances so affecting, I had almost said 
so overwhelming, this renowned theatre 
of their courage and patriotism. 

Venekabi.e men ! you have come 
down to us from a former generation. 
Heaven has bounteously lengthened out 
your lives, that you might behold this 
joyous day. You are now where you 
stood fifty years ago, this very hour, 
with your brothers and your neighbors, 
shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for 
your country. Behold, how^ altered ! 
The same heavens are indeed over your 
heads ; the same ocean rolls at your feet ; 
but all else how changed ! You hear 
now no roar of hostile cannon, you see 
no mixed volumes of smoke and flame 
rising from burning Charlestown. The 
ground strewed with the dead and the 
dying: the impetuous charge; the steady 
and successful repulse; the loud call to 
repeated assault; the summoning of all 
that is manly to repeated resistance; a 
thousand bosoms freely and fearlessly 
bared in an instant to whatever of terror 
there may be in war and death; — all 
these you have witnessed, but you wit- 
ness them no more. All is peace. The 
heights of yonder metropolis, its tower.s 
and roofs, which you then saw filled 
with wives and children and country- 
men in distress and terror, and looking 
with unutterable emotions for the issiie 
of the combat, have presented you to- 



day with the sight of its whole happy 
population, come out to welcome and 
greet you with a universal jubilee. 
Yonder proud ships, by a felicity of 
position a[)propriately lying at the foot 
of this mount, and seeming fondly to 
cling arountl it, are not means of annoy- 
ance to you, but your country's own 
means of distinction and defence. i All 
is peace; and God has granted you this 
sight of your country's happiness, ere 
you slumber in the grave. He has al- 
lowed you to behold and to partake the 
reward of your patriotic toils; and he 
has allowed us, your sons and country- 
men, to meet you here, and in the name 
of the present generation, in the name 
of your country, in the name of liberty, 
to thank you ! 

But, alas! you are not all here! Time 
and the sword have thinned your ranks. 
Prescott, Putnam, Stark, Brooks, Read, 
Pomeroy, Bridge ! our eyes seek for you 
in vain amid this broken band. You 
are gathered to your fathers, and live 
only to your country in her grateful re- 
membrance and your own bright ex- 
ample. But let us not too much grieve, 
that you have met the common fate of 
men. You lived at least long enough 
to know that your work had been nobly 
and successfully accomplished. You 
lived to see your country's indepen- 
dence established, and to sheathe yom* 
swords fi'om war. On the light of Lib- 
erty you saw arise the light of Peace, 
lUve 

" another morn, 
Risen on mid-nooii " ; 

and the sky on which you closed your 
eyes was cloudless. 

But ah ! Him ! the first great martyr in 
this great cause! Him! the premature 
victim of his own self -devoting heart! 
Him! the head of our civil couiu-ils, 
and the destined leader of our military 
bands, whom nothing brought hither 
but the unquenchable fire of his own 
spirit ! Him ! cut off by Providence iu 

1 It i^ necessary to iiifonn tliosc only who 
are unacquainted with the localiiicn, that Iho 
United States Navy Yard at Ciiarlestown is 
situated at the base of Bunker Hill. 



128 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



the hour of overwhelming anxiety and 
thick gloom ; falling ere he saw the star 
of his country rise; pouring out his 
generous blood like water, before he 
knew whether it would fertilize a land 
of freedom or of bondage I — how shall 
I sti'uggle with the emotions that stifle 
/ the utterance of thy name ! ^ Our poor 
work may perish; but thine shall en- 
dure! This monument may moulder 
away; the solid ground it rests upon 
may sink down to a level with the sea; 
but thy memory shall not fail ! Where- 
soever among men a heart shall be 
found that beats to the transports of 
patriotism and liberty, its aspirations 
shall be to claim kindred with thy 
spirit ! 

But the scene amidst which we stand 
does not permit us to confine our 
thoughts or our sympathies to those 
fearless spirits who hazarded or lost 
their lives on this consecrated spot. 
We have the happiness to rejoice here 
in the presence of a most worthy repre- 
sentation of the survivors of the whole 
Revolutionary army. 

Veterans! you are the remnant of 
many a well-fought field. You bring 
with you marks of honor from Trenton 
and Monmouth, from Yorktown, Cam- 
den, Bennington, and Saratoga. Vet- 
erans OF HALF A century! wlien in 
your youthful days you put every thing 
at hazard in your country's cause, good 
as that cause was, and sanguine as 
youth is, still your fondest hopes did 
not stretch onward to an hour like this ! 
At a period to which you could not 
I'easonably have expected to arrive, at a 
moment of national prosperity such as 
you could never have foreseen, you are 
now met here to enjoy the fellowship of 
old soldiers, and to receive the over- 
flowings of a universal gratitude. 

But your agitated countenances and 
your heaving breasts inform me that 
even this is not an unmixed joy. I 
perceive that a tumult- of contending 
feelings rushes upon you. The images 
of the dead, as well as the persons of 
the living, present themselves before 

1 See the North American Review, Vol. 
XLI. p. 2i2. 



you. The scene ovei'whelms you, and 
I turn from it. May the Father of all 
mercies smile upon your declining years, 
and bless them! And when you shall 
here have exchanged your embraces, 
when you shall once more have pressed 
the hands which have been so often ex- 
tended to give succor in adversity, or 
grasped in the exultation of victory, 
then look abroad upon this lovely land 
which your young valor defended, and 
mark the happiness with which it is 
filled; yea, look abroad upon the whole 
earth, and see what a name you have 
contributed to give to your country, and 
what a praise you have added to free- 
dom, and then rejoice in the sympathy 
and gratitude which beam upon your 
last days from the improved condition 
of mankind ! 

The occasion does not require of me 
any particular account of the battle of 
the 17th of June, 1775, nor any de- 
tailed narrative of the events which 
immediately preceded it. These are 
familiarly known to all. In the prog- 
ress of the great and interesting con- 
troversy, Massachusetts and the town 
of Boston had become early and marked 
objects of the displeasure of the British I 
Parliament. This had been manifested 
in the act for altering the government 
of the Province, and in that for shut- 
ting up the port of Boston. Nothing 
sheds more honor on our early history, 
and nothing better shows how little the 
feelings and sentiments of the Colonies 
were known or regarded in England, 
than the impression which these meas- 
ures everywhere produced in America. 
It had been anticipated, that, while the 
Colonies in general would be terrified 
by the severity of the punishment in- 
flicted on Massachusetts, the other sea- 
ports would be governed by a mere , 
spirit of gain ; and that, as Boston was ' 
now cut off from all commerce, the un- 
expected advantage which this blow on 
her was calculated to confer on other 
towns would be greedily enjoyed. How 
miserably such reasoners deceived them- 
selves! How little they knew of the 
depth, and the strength, and the in- 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



129 



tenseness of that feeling of resistance to 
illegal acts of power, -which possessed 
the whole American people! Every- 
where the unworthy boon was rejected 
with scorn. The fortunate occasion 
was seized, everywhere, to show to the 
whole world that the Colonies were 
swayed by no local interest, no partial 
interest, no selfish interest. The temp- 
tation to profit by the punishment of 
Boston was strongest to our neighbors 
of Salem. Yet Salem was precisely the 
place where this miserable proffer was 
spurned, in a tone of the most lofty 
self-respect and the most indignant 
patriotism. " We are deeply affected," 
said its inhabitants, "with the sense of 
our public calamities; but the miseries 
that are now rapidly hastening on our 
brethren in tlie capital of the Province 
greatly excite our commiseration. By 
shutting up the port of Boston, some 
imagine that the course of trade might 
be turned hither and to our benefit; but 
we must be dead to every idea of justice, 
lost to all feelings of humanity, could 
we indulge a thought to seize on wealth 
and raise our fortunes on the ruin of 
our suffering neighbors." These noble 
sentiments were not confined to our im- 
mediate vicinity. In that day of gen- 
eral affection and brotherhood, the blow 
given to Boston smote on every patriotic 
lieart from one end of the country to 
the other. Virginia and the Carolinas, 
as well as Connecticut and New Hamp- 
shire, felt and proclaimed the cause to 
be their own. The Continental Con- 
gress, then holding its first session in 
Philadelphia, expressed its sympathy 
for the suffering inhabitants of Boston, 
and addresses were received from all 
quarters, assuring them that the cause 
was a common one, and should be met 
by common efforts and common sacri- 
fices. The Congress of Massachusetts 
responded to tiiese assurances; and in 
an address to the Congress at Philadel- 
phia, bearing the official signature, per- 
haps among the last, of the innnortal 
Warren, notwithstanding the severity 
of its suffering and the magnitude of 
the dangers wliich threatened it, it was 
declared, that this Colony " is ready, at 



all times, to spend and to be spent in 
the cause of America." 

But the hour drew nigh which was to 
put professions to the proof, and to de- 
termine whether the authors of these 
mutual pledges were ready to seal tliem 
in blood. The tidings of Lexington 
and Concord had no sooner spread, than 
it was universally felt that the time wa,s 
at last come for action. A spirit per- 
vaded all ranks, not transient, not bois- 
terous, but deep, solemn, determined, 

"totamque infusa per artus 
Mens agitat molem, et niagno se corpore miscet." 

War, on their own soil and at their own 
doors, was, indeed, a strange work to 
the yeomanry of New England; but 
their consciences were convinced of its 
necessity, theii' country called tliem to 
it, and they did not withhold themselves 
from the perilous trial. The ordinary 
occupations of life were abandoned; 
the plough was staid in the unfinished 
furrow; wives gave up their husbands, 
and mothers gave up their sons, to the 
battles of a civil war. Death might 
come, in honor, on the field; it might 
come, in disgrace, on the scafi^old. For 
either and for both they were prejiared. 
The sentiment of Quincy was full in 
their hearts. " Blandishments," said 
that distinguished son of genius and 
patriotism, "will not fascinate us, nor 
will threats of a halter intimidate ; for, 
under God, we are determined that, 
wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever 
we shall be called to make our exit, we 
will die free men." 

The 17th of June saw the four New 
England Colonies standing here, side by 
side, to triumph or to fall together; and 
there was with them from that moment 
to the end of the war, what I hope will 
remain with them for ever, one cause, 
one country, one heart. 

The battle of Bunker IliU was at- 
tended with the most important effects 
beyond its immediate results as a mili- 
tary engagement. It created at once a 
state of open, public war. There could 
now be no longer a question of prociied- 
ing against individuals, as guilty of 
treason or rebellion. That fearful crisis 



9 



130 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



■was past. The appeal lay to the sword, 
and the only question was, whether the 
spirit and the resources of the people 
would hold out, till the object should 
be accomplished. Nor were its general 
consequences confined to our own coun- 
try. The previous proceedings of the 
Colonies, their appeals, resolutions, and 
addresses, had made their cause known to 
Europe. Without boasting, we may say, 
that in no age or country has the public 
cause been maintained with more force 
of argument, more power of illustration, 
or more of that persuasion which ex- 
cited feeling and elevated principle can 
alone bestow, than the Revolutionary 
state papers exhibit. These papers will 
for ever deserve to be studied, not only 
for the spirit which they breathe, but 
for the ability with which they were 
written. 

To this able vindication of their cause, 
the Colonies had now added a practical 
and severe proof of their own true de- 
votion to it, and given evidence also of 
the power which they could bring to its 
support. All now saw, that, if America 
fell, she would not fall without a strug- 
gle. Men felt sympathy and regard, as 
well as sm'prise, when they beheld these 
infant states, remote, unknown, un- 
aided, encoimter the power of England, 
and, in the first considerable battle, 
leave more of their enemies dead on the 
field, in proportion to the number of 
combatants, than had been recently 
known to fall in the wars of Europe. 

Information of these events, circu- 
lating throughout the world, at length 
reached the ears of one who now hears 
me.' He has not forgotten the emotion 
which the fame of Bunker Hill, and the 
name of Warren, excited in his youth- 
ful breast. 

Sir, we are assembled to commemo- 
rate the establishment of great public 
principles of liberty, and to do honor 

1 Among the earliest of the arrangements for 
the celebration of the 17th of June, 1825, was 
the invitation to General Lafayette to be pres- 
ent; and he had so timed his progress through 
the other States as to return to Massachusetts 
in season for the gieat occasion. 



to the distinguished dead. The occa- 
sion is too severe for eulogy of the liv- 
ing. But, Sir, your interesting relation 
to this country, the peculiar circum- 
stances which sm'round you and sur- 
round us, call on me to express the 
happiness which we derive from your 
presence and aid in this solemn com- 
memoration. 

Fortunate, fortunate man! with what 
measure of devotion will you not thank 
God for the circimistances of your ex- 
traordinary life! You are connected 
with both hemispheres and with two 
generations. Heaven saw fit to ordain, 
that the electric spark of liberty should 
be conducted, through you, from the 
New World to the Old; and we, who 
are now here to perform this duty of 
patriotism, have all of us long ago re- 
ceived it in charge from our fathers to 
cherish your name and your virtues. 
You will account it an instance of your 
good fortune, Sir, that you crossed the 
seas to visit us at a time which enables 
you to be present at this solemnity. 
You now behold the field, the renown 
of which reached you in the heart of 
France, and caused a thrill in your ar- 
dent bosom. You see the lines of the 
little redoubt thrown up by the incredi- 
ble diligence of Prescott; defended, to 
the last extremity, by his lion-hearted 
valor; and within which the corner- 
stone of our monument has now taken 
its position. You see where Warren 
fell, and where Parker, Gardner, Mc- 
Cleary, Moore, and other early patriots, 
fell with him. Those who survived that 
day, and whose lives have been pro- 
longed to the present hour, are now 
around you. Some of them you have 
known in the trying scenes of the war. 
Behold! they now stretch forth their 
feeble arms to embrace you. Behold! 
they raise their trembling voices to in- 
voke the blessing of God on you and 
yours for ever. 

Sir, you have assisted us in laying the 
foundation of this structure. You have 
heard us rehearse, with our feeble com- 
mendation, the names of departed pa- 
triots. Monuments and eulogy belong 
to the dead. We give them this day to 



THE BUNKER IITLL iMOXUMENT. 



131 



Warren and his associates. On other 
occasions they liave been given to your 
more immediate companions in arms, 
to Washington, to Greene, to Gates, to 
Sullivan, and to Lincoln. We have 
become reluctant to grant these, our 
highest and last honors, further. We 
would gladly hold them yet back from 
the little remnant of that immortal 
band. Serus in ccclum redeas. Illustri- 
ous as are your merits, yet far, O very 
far distant be the da}', when any inscrip- 
tion shall bear your name, or any tongue 
pronounce its eulogy ! 

The leading reflection to which this 
occasion seems to invite us, respects the 
great changes which have happened in 
the fifty years since the battle of Bunker 
Hill was fought. And it peculiarly 
marks the character of the present age, 
that, in looking at these changes, and in 
estimating their effect on our condition, 
we are obliged to consider, not what has 
been done in our own country only, but 
in others also. In these interesting 
times, while nations are making separate 
and individual advances in improvement, 
they make, too, a common progress; like 
vessels on a common tide, propelled by 
the gales at different rates, according to 
their several structui'e and management, 
but all moved forward by one mighty 
current, strong enough to bear onward 
whatever does not sink beneath it. 

A chief distinction of the present day 
is a community of opinions and knowl- 
edge amongst men in different nations, 
existing in a degree heretofore unknown. 
Knowledge has, in our time, triumphed, 
and is triumphing, over distance, over 
difference of languages, over diversity 
ol' habits, over prejudice, and over big- 
otry. The civilized and Christian world 
is fast learning the great lesson, that dif- 
ference of nation does not imply neces- 
sary hostility, and that all contact need 
not be war. The whole world is becom- 
ing a common field for intellect to act 
in. Energy of mind, genius, power, 
wheresoever it exists, may speak out in 
any tongue, and the world will hear it. 
A great chord of sentiment and feeling 
runs through two continents, and vi- 



brates over both. Every breeze wafts 
intelligence from country to countrv ; 
every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and 
all in turn receive it. There is a vast 
coiiuucrce of ideas; there are marts and 
exchanges for intellectual discoveries, 
and a wonderful fellowship of those 
individual intelligences which make up 
the mind and opinion of the age. ^lind 
is the great lever of all things; lunnan 
thought is the process by which human 
ends are ultimately answen^d; and the 
diffusion of knowledge, so astonishing 
in the last half-century, has rendered 
innumerable minds, variously gifted by 
nature, competent to be competitors or 
fellow-workers on the theatre of intel- 
lectual operation. 

From these causes important improve- 
ments have taken place in the personal 
condition of individuals. Generally 
speaking, mankind are not only better 
fed and better clothed, but they are able 
also to enjoy more leisure; they possess 
more refinement and more self-respect. 
A superior tone of education, maimers, 
and habits prevails. This renuirk, most 
true in its apijlication to our own coun- 
try, is also partly true when applied 
elsewhere. It is proved by the vastly 
augmented consmnption of those articles 
of manufacture and of commei'ce which 
contribute to the comforts and the de- 
cencies of life ; an augmentation which 
has far outrun the progress of popula- 
tion. And while the unexampled and 
almost incredible use of machinery 
w^ould seem to supply the place of 
labor, labor still finds its occupation 
and its reward; so wisely has Provi- 
dence adjusted men's wants and desires 
to their condition and their capacity. 

Any adecpiate survey, however, of the 
progress made during the last half-cen- 
tury in the polite and the mechanic arts, 
in machinery and manufactures, in com- 
merce and agriculture, m letters and in 
science, would require volumes. I must 
abstain wholly from tiicse subjects, and 
turn for a moment to tlie contemplation 
of what has been done on tlie great 
question of i)olitics and government. 
This is the master topic of the age; and 
during the whole fifty years it haa in- 



132 



THE BUNKER 



Hn. 



tensely occupied the thoughts of men. 
The nature of civil government, its 
ends and uses, have been canvassed and 
investigated; ancient opinions attacked 
and defended ; new ideas recommended 
and resisted, by whatever power the 
mind of man could bring to the contro- 
versy. From the closet and the public 
halls the debate has been transferred to 
the field ; and the world has been shaken 
by wars of unexampled magnitude, and 
the greatest variety of fortune. A day 
of peace has at length succeeded; and 
now that the strife has subsided, and 
the smoke cleared away, we may begin 
to see what has actually been done, per- 
manently changing the state and condi- 
tion of human society. And, without 
dwelling on particular circumstances, it 
is most apparent, that, from the before- 
mentioned causes of augmented knowl- 
edge and improved individual condition, 
a real, substantial, and important change 
has taken place, and is taking place, 
highly favorable, on the whole, to hu- 
man liberty and human happiness. 

The great wheel of political revolution 
began to move in America. Here its 
rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. 
Transferred to the other continent, from 
unfortunate but natural causes, it re- 
ceived an irregular and violent impulse ; 
it whirled along with a fearful celerity ; 
till at length, like the chariot-wheels in 
the races of antiquity, it took fire from 
the rapidity of its own motion, and 
blazed onward, spreading conflagration 
and terror around. 

We learn from the result of this ex- 
periment, how fortunate was our own 
condition, and how admirably the char- 
acter of our people was calculated for 
setting the great example of popular 
governments. The possession of power 
did not turn the heads of 'the American 
people, for they had long been in the 
habit of exercising a great degree of 
self-control. Although the paramount 
authority of the parent state existed 
over them, yet a large field of legisla- 
tion had always been open to our Colo- 
nial assemblies. They were accustomed 
to representative bodies and the forms 
of free government; they understood 



L MONUMENT. 



the doctrine of the division of power 
among different branches, and the neces- 
sity of checks on each. The character 
of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, 
moral, and religious ; and there was little 
in the change to shock their feelings of 
justice and himianity, or even to disturb 
an honest prejudice. We had no do- 
mestic throne to overturn, no privileged 
orders to cast down, no violent changes 
of property to encounter. In the Ameri- 
can Revolution, no man sought or wished 
for more than to defend and enjoy his 
own. None hoped for plunder or for 
spoil. Rapacity was unkno%vn to it; 
the axe was not among the instruments 
of its accomplishment; and we all know 
that it could not have lived a single day 
under any well-founded imputation of 
possessing a tendency adverse to the 
Christian religion. 

It need not surprise us, that, under 
circumstances less auspicious, political 
revolutions elsewhere, even when well 
intended, have tei-minated differently. 
It is, indeed, a great achievement, it is 
the master- work of the world, to estab- 
lish govei-nments entirely popular on 
lasting foundations; nor is it easy, in- 
deed, to introduce the popular principle 
at all into governments to which it has 
been altogether a stranger. It cannot 
be doubted, however, that Europe has 
come out of the contest, in which she 
has been so long engaged, with greatly 
superior knowledge, and, in many re- 
spects, in a highly improved condition. 
Whatever benefit has been acquired is 
likely to be retained, for it consists 
mainly in the acquisition of more en- 
lightened ideas. And although king- 
doms and provinces may be wrested 
from the hands that hold them, in the 
same manner they were obtained; al- 
though ordinary and vulgar power may, 
in human affairs, be lost as it has been 
won; yet it is the glorious prerogative 
of the empire of knowledge, that what 
it gains it never loses. On the contrary, 
it increases by the multiple of its own 
power; all its ends become means; all 
its attainments, helps to new conquests. 
Its whole abundant harvest is but so much 
seet^ wheat, and nothing has Imiited, and 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



133 



nothing can limit, the amount of ultimate 
product. 

Under the influence of this rapidly in- 
creasing knowledge, the people have be- 
gun, in all forms of government, to 
think and to reason, on affairs of state. 

, liegarding government as an institution 
for the public good, they demand a 
knowledge of its operations, and a par- 

V, ticipatiou in its exercise. A call for the 
representative system, wherever it is not 
enjoyed, and where there is already in- 
telligence enough to estimate its value, 
is perseveringly made. Where men may 
speak out, they demand it; where the 
bayonet is at their throats, they pray 
for it. 

When Louis the Fourteenth said, " I 
am the state," he expressed the essence 
of the doctrine of unlimited power. By 
the rules of that system, the people are 
disconnected from the state ; they are its 
subjects; it is their lord. These ideas, 
founded in the love of power, and long 
supported by the excess and the abuse 
of it, are yielding, in our age, to other 
opinions; and the civilized world seems 
at last to be proceeding to the conviction 
of that fundamental and manifest truth, 
that the powers of government are but 
a trust, and that they cannot be lawfully 
exercised but for the good of the com- 
munity. As knowledge is more and 
more extended, this conviction becomes 
more and moi'e general. Knowledge, 
in truth, is the great sun in the firma- 
ment. Life and power are scattered 
with all its beams. The prayer of the 
Grecian champion, when enveloped in 
imnatural clouds and darkness, is the 
appropriate political supplication for the 
people of every countiy not yet blessed 
with free institutions : — 

"Dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore. 
Give me to sEii, — and Ajax asks no more." 

■y- "We may hope that the growing influ- 

^ ence of enlightened sentiment will pro- 

■ mote the permanent peace of the W'orld. 

Wars to maintain family alliances, to 

uphold or to cast down dynasties, and 

to regulate successions to thrones, which 

have occupied so much room in the his- 

( tory of modern times, if not less likely 

to happen at all, will be less likely to'be- 



come general and involve many nation.s, 
as the great principle shall be more and 
more established, that the interest of the 
w'orld is peace, and its first great statute, 
that every nation possesses the power of 
establishing a government for itself. 
But public opinion has attained also an 
influence over governments which do not 
admit the popular principle into their 
organization. A necessary respect for 
the judgment of the world operates, in 
some measure, as a control over the most 
unlimited forms of authority. It is 
owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the 
interesting struggle of the Greeks has 
been suffered to go on so long, without 
a direct interference, either to wrest that 
country from its present musters, or to 
execute the system of pacification by 
force, and, with united strength, lay the 
neck of Christian and civilized Greek at 
the foot of the barbarian Turk. Let us 
thank (Jod that we live in an age when 
something has influence besides the bayo- 
net, and when the sternest authority does 
not venture to encounter the scorching 
power of public reproach. Any attempt 
of the kind I have mentioned should be 
met by one universal burst of indigna- 
tion ; the air of the civilized world ought 
to be made too w arm to be comfortably 
breathed by any one who would haz- 
ard it. 

It is, indeed, a touching reflection, 
that, while, in the fulness of our country's 
happiness, we rear this monument to her 
honor, we look for instruction in our 
undertaking to a country wiiich is now 
in fearful contest, not for works of art 
or memorials of glory, but for lier own 
existence. Let her be assured, that she 
is not forgotten in the world ; that her 
eiforts are applauded, and that constant 
prayers ascend for her success. And let 
us cherish ^ confident hope for her final 
triumph, vlf the true spark of religious 
and civil lil)erty be kindled, it will burn. 
Human agency cannot extinguisli it. ^ 
Like the earth's central fire, it may be 
smothered for a time; the ocfan may 
overwhelm it; mountains may press it 
down ; but its inherent and unconquer- 
able force will heave both the ocean and 
the land, and at some time or otlier, in 



134 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



,8ome place or other, the volcano will 
break out and flame up to heaven. 

Among the great events of the half- 
.century, we must reckon, certainly, the 
revolution of South America; and we 
are not likely to overrate the importance 
of that revolution, either to the people 
of the country itself or to the rest of the 
world. The late Spanish colonies, now 
independent states, under circumstances 
less favorable, doubtless, than attended 
our own revolution, have yet successful- 
ly commenced their national existence. 
They have accomplished the great ob- 
ject of establishing their independence ; 
they are known and acknowledged in 
the world; and although in regard to 
their systems of government, their senti- 
ments on religious toleration, and their 
provisions for public instruction, they 
may have yet much to learn, it must be 
admitted that they have risen to the con- 
dition of settled and established states 
more rapidly than could have been rea- 
sonably anticipated. They already fur- 
nish an exhilarating example of the dif- 
ference between free governments and 
despotic misrule. Their commerce, at 
this moment, creates a new activity in 
all the great marts of the world. They 
show themselves able, by an exchange 
of commodities, to bear a useful part in 
the intercourse of nations. 

A new spirit of enterprise and indus- 
try begins to prevail; all the great in- 
terests of society receive a salutary im- 
pulse; and the progress of information 
not only testifies to an improved condi- 
tion, but itself constitutes the highest 
and most essential improvement. 

When the battle of Bunker Hill was 
fought, the existence of South America 
was scarcely felt in the civilized world. 
The thirteen little Colonies of North 
America habitually called themselves 
the "Continent." Borne down by co- 
lonial subjugation, monopoly, and big- 
otry, these vast regions of the South 
were hardly visible above the horizon. 
But in our day there has been, as it 
were, a new creation. The southern 
hemisphere emerges from the sea. Its 
lofty mountains begin to lift themselves 
into the light of heaven; its broad and 



fertile plains stretch out, in beauty, to 
the eye of civilized man, and at the 
mighty bidding of the voice of political 
liberty the waters of darkness retire. 

And, now, let us indulge an honest 
exultation in the conviction of the ben- 
efit which the example of our countiy 
has produced, and is likely to produce, 
on hmnan freedom and human happi- 
ness. Let us endeavor to comisrehend 
in all its magnitude, and to feel in all 
its importance, the part assigned to us 
in the great drama of human affairs. 
We are placed at the head of the system 
of representative and popular govern- 
ments. Thus far our example shows 
that such governments are compatible, 
not only with respectability and power, 
but with repose, with peace, with secu- 
rity of personal rights, with good laws, 
and a just administration. 

We are not propagandists. Wherever 
other systems are preferred, either as 
being thought better in themselves, or 
as better suited to existing condition, 
we leave the preference to be enjoyed. 
Our history hitherto proves, however, 
that the popular form is practicable, and 
that with wisdom and knowledge men 
may govern themselves; and the duty 
incumbent on us is, to preserve the con- 
sistency of this cheering example, and 
take care that nothing may weaken its 
authority with the world. If, in our 
case, the representative system ultimate- 
ly fail, popular governments nmst be 
pronounced imjiossible. No combina- 
tion of circumstances more favorable 
to the experiment can e\er be expected 
to occur. The last hopes of mankind, 
therefore, rest with us; and if it should 
be proclaimed, that our example had 
become an argument against the experi- 
ment, the knell of popular liberty would 
be sounded throughout the earth. 

These are excitements to duty; but 
they are not suggestions of doubt. Ouv 
history and our condition, all that is 
gone before us, and all that surrounds 
us, authorize the belief, that pojjular 
governments, though subject to occa- 
sional variations, in form perhaps not 
always for the better, may yet, in their 



THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



135 



general character, be as durable and 
permanent as other systems. We know, 
indeed, that in our country any other is 
impossible. The principle of free gov- 
ernments adheres to the American soil. 
It is bedded in it, immovable as its 
mountains. 

And let the sacred obligations which 
have devolved on this generation, and 
on us, sink deep into our hearts. Those 
who established our liberty and our gov- 
ernment are daily dropping from among 
us. The great trust now descends to 
new hands. Let us apply ourselves to 
that which is presented to us, as our 
appropriate object. We can win no lau- 
rels in a w'ar for independence. Earlier 
and worthier hands have gathered them 
all. Nor are there places for us by the 
side of Solon, and Alfred, and other 
founders of states. Our fathers have 
tilled them. But there remains to us a 
great duty of defence and preservation ; 
and there is opened to us, also, a noble 
pui-suit, to which the spirit of the times 
strongly invites us. Our proper business 
is improvement. Let our age be the age 



of improvement. In a day of peace, let 
us advance the arts of peace and the 
works of peace. Let us develop the re- 
sources of our land, call fortli its pow- 
ers, build up its institutions, promote 
all its great interests, and see whether 
we also, in our day and generation, may 
not perform something wortliy to be re- 
membered. Let us cultivate a true spirit 
of union and harmony. In pursuing tlie 
great objects which our condition j)oint3 
out to us, let us act under a settled con- 
viction, and an habitual feeling, that 
these twenty-four States are one coun- 
try. Let oin- conceptions be enlarged to 
the circle of our duties. Let us extend 
our ideas over the whole of the vast field 
in which we are called to act. Let our 
object be, our country, our wholb 

COUNTRY, AND NOTHING BUT OUR 

COUNTRY. And, by the blessing of 
God, may that country itself become a 
vast and splendid monument, not of op- 
pression and terror, but of Wisdom, of 
Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the 
world may gaze with admiration for 
ever ! \ 



\ 



THE COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL 

MONUMENT. 

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED ON BUNKER HILL, ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 1843, 
ON OCCASION OF THE COMPLETION OF THE MONUMENT. 



[In the introductory note to the preceding 
Address, a brief account is given of the 
origin and progress of the measures adopted 
for the erection of the Bunker Hill Monu- 
ment, down to the time of laying the cor- 
ner-stone, compiled from Mr. Frothingham's 
History of the Siege of Boston. The same 
valuable work (pp. 345—352) relates the ob- 
stacles which presented themselves to the 
rapid execution of the design, and the means 
by which they were overcome. In this nar- 
rative, Mr. Frothingham has done justice to 
the efforts and exertions of the successive 
boards of direction and officers of the Asso- 
ciation, to the skill and disinterestedness of 
the architect, to the liberality of distin- 
guished individuals, to the public spirit of 
the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic As- 
sociation, in promoting a renewed subscrip- 
tion, and to the patriotic zeal of the ladies 
of Boston and the vicinity, in holding a 
most successful fair. As it would be diffi- 
cult farther to condense the information 
contained in this interesting summary, we 
must refer the reader to Mr. Frothingham's 
work for an adequate account of the causes 
which delayed the completion of the monu- 
ment for nearly seventeen years, and of the 
resources and exertions by which the de- 
sired end was finally attained. The last 
stone was raised to its place on the morning 
of the 23d of July, 1842. 

It was determined by the directors of the 
Association, that the completion of the work 
should be celebrated in a manner not less 
imposing than that in which the laying of 
the corner-stone had been celebrated, seven- 
teen years before. The co-operation of Mr. 
Webster was again invited, and, notwith- 
standing the pressure of his engagements 
as Secretary of State at Wasliington, was 
again patriotically yielded. Many circum- 
stances conspired to increase the interest of 
the occasion. The completion of the monu- 
ment had been long delayed, but in the in- 
terval the subject had been kept much 
before the public mind. Mr. Webster's ad- 
dress on tlie 17th of June, 1825, had obtained 
the widest circulation throughout the coun- 



try : passages from it had passed into 
houseliold words throughout the Union. 
Wherever they were repeated, they made 
the Bunker Hill Monument a familiar 
thought with the people. Meantime, Bos- 
ton and Charlestown had doubled their 
population, and the multiplication of rail- 
roads in every direction enabled a person, 
in almost any part of New England, to reach 
the metropolis in a day. The President of 
the United States and his Cabinet had ac- 
cepted invitations to be present ; delegations 
of the descendants of New England were 
present from the remotest parts of the 
Union ; one hundred and eight surviving 
veterans of the Revolution, among whom 
were some who were in the battle of Bunker 
Hill, imparted a touching interest to the 
scene. 

Every thing conspired to promote the 
success of the ceremonial. The day was 
uncommonly fine ; cool for the season, and 
clear. A large volunteer force from vari- 
ous parts of the country had assembled for 
the occasion, and formed a brilliant escort 
to an immense procession, as it moved from 
Boston to the battle-ground on the hill. 
The bank which slopes down from the obe- 
lisk on the eastern side of Monument Square 
was covered with seats, rising in the form 
of an amphitheatre, under the open sky. 
These had been prepared for ladies, who 
had assembled in great numbers, awaiting 
the arrival of the procession. When it ar- 
rived, it was received into a large open area 
in front of these seats. Mr. Webster was 
stationed upon an elevated platform, in 
front of the audience and of the monument 
towering in the background. According 
to Mr. Frotliingham's estimate, a hundred 
thousand persons were gathered about the 
spot, and nearly half that number are sup- 
posed to have been within the reach of the 
orator's voice. The ground rises slightly 
between the platform and the Monument 
Square, so that the whole of this immense 
concourse, compactly crowded together, 
breathless with attention, swayed by one 
sentiment of admiratiou and delight, was 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



137 



within the full view of the speaker. The 
position and tiie occasion were the iieight 
of the moral sublime. " When, after say- 
ing, ' It is not from my lips, it could not be 
from any human lips, that that strain of 
eloquence is this day to flow most compe- 
tent to move and e.xcite the vast multitude 
around me, — the powerful speaker stands 
motionless before us,' — he paused, and point- 
ed in silent admiration to the sublime struc- 
ture, the audience burst into long and loud 
applause. It was some moments before the 
speaker could go on with the address."] 

A DUTY has been performed. A work 
of gratitude aiad patriotism is completed. 
This structure, having its foundations 
in soil which drank deep of early Revo- 
hitionary blood, has at length reached 
its destined height, and now lifts its 
summit to the skies. 

We have assembled to celebrate the 
accomplishment of this undertaking, and 
to indulge afresh in the recollection of 
the great event which it is designed to 
commemorate. Eighteen years, more 
than half the ordinary duration of a 
generation of mankind, have elapsed 
since the corner-stone of this monument 
was laid. The hopes of its projectors 
rested on voluntary contributions, pri- 
vate munificence, and the general favor 
of the public. These hopes have not 
been disappointed. Donations have been 
made by individuals, in some cases of 
large amount, and smaller sums have 
been contributed by thousands. All 
who regard the object itself as impor- 
tant, and its accomplishment, therefore, 
as a good attained, will entertain sincere 
respect and gratitude for the unwearied 
efforts of the successive presidents, 
boards of directors, and committees of 
the Association which has had the gen- 
eral control of the work. The architect, 
equally entitled to our thanks and com- 
mendation, will find other reward, also, 
for his labor and skill, in the beauty and 
elegance of the obelisk itself, and the 
distinction which, as a work of art, it 
confers upon him. 

At a period when the prospects of fur- 
ther progress in the undertaking were 
gloomy and discouraging, the Mechanic 
Association, by a most praiseworthy and 
vigorous effort, raised new funds for car- 
rying it forward, and saw them applied 



with fidelity, economy, and skill. It is 
a grateful duty to make public acknowl- 
edgments of such timely and efficient 
aid. 

The last effort and the last contribu- 
tion were from a different source. Gar- 
lands of grace and elegance were destined 
to crown a work whicli had its com- 
mencement in manly patriotism. The 
winning power of the sex addressed it- 
self to the public, and all that was 
needed to carry the monument to its 
proposed height, and to give to it its 
finish, was promptly supplied. The 
mothers and the daughters of the land 
contributed thus, most successfully, to 
Avhatever there is of beauty in the inoim- 
ment itself, or whatever of utility and 
public benefit and gratification there is 
in its completion. 

Of those with whom the plan origi- 
nated of erecting on this spot a 
monument worthy of the event to be 
commemorated, many are now present; 
but others, alas ! have themselves be- 
come subjects of monumental inscrip- 
tion. William Tudor, an accomplished 
scholar, a distinguished writer, a most 
amiable man, allied both by birth and 
sentiment to the patriots of the Revolu- 
tion, died while on public service abroad, 
and now lies buried in a foreign land.^ 
William Sullivan, a name fragrant of 
Revolutionary merit, and of public ser- 
vice and public virtue, who himself i)ar- 
took in a high degree of the respect and 
confidence of the community, and yet 
was always most loved where best known, 
has also been gathered to his fathers. 
And last, George Blake, a lawyer of 
learning and elocpience, a man of wit 
and of talent, of social qualities the most 
agreeable and fascinating, and of gifts 
which enabled him to exercise large 
sway over public assemblies, has closed 
his human career.-* I know that in the 
crowds before me there are those from 
whose eyes tears will flow at the men- 

1 William Tudor died nt Rio (1« .laneiro, as 
Charge d'.\ffaires of the United Slates, in 
1830. 

2 William Sullivan died in Boston in 18.39, 
George Blake in 1841, Iwth gentlemen of great 
j)olitical and legal eminence. 



138 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



tion of these names. But such mention 
is due to their general character, their 
public and private virtues, and espe- 
cially, on this occasion, to the spirit and 
zeal with which they entered into the 
undertaking which is now completed. 

I have spoken only of those who are 
no longer numbered with the living. 
But a long life, now drawing towards 
its close, always distinguished by acts 
of public spirit, humanity, and charity, 
forming a character which has already 
become historical, and sanctified by 
public regard and the affection of 
friends, may confer even on the living 
the proper immunity of the dead, and 
be the fit subject of honorable mention 
and warm commendation. Of the early 
projectors of the design of tliis monu- 
ment, one of the most prominent, the 
most zealous, and the most efficient, is 
Thomas H. Perkins. It M'as beneath 
his ever-hospitable roof that those whom 
I have mentioned, and others yet living 
and now present, having assembled for 
the purpose, adopted the first step to- 
wards erecting a monument on Bunker 
Hill. Long may he remain, with un- 
impaired faculties, in the wide field of 
his usefulness! His charities have dis- 
tilled, like the dews of heaven; he has 
fed the hungry, and clothed the naked; 
he has given sight to the blind ; and for 
such virtues there is a reward on high, 
of which all human memorials, all lan- 
guage of brass and stone, are but hum- 
ble types and attempted imitations. 

Time and nature have had their 
course, in diminishing the number of 
those whom we met here on the 17th of 
June, 1825. Most of the Revolutionary 
characters then present have since de- 
ceased ; and Lafayette sleeps in his na- 
tive land. Yet the name and blood of 
Warren are with us; the kindred of 
Putnam are also here; and near me, 
universally beloved for his character 
and his virtues, and now venerable for 
his years, sits the son of the noble- 
hearted and daring Prescott.^ Gideon 

1 William Prescntt (since deceased, in 1844), 
son of Colonel William Prescott, who com- 
manded on the 17th of June, 1775, and father 
of William H. Prescott, the historian. 



Foster of Danvers, Enos Reynolds of 
Boxford, Phineas Johnson, Robert An- 
drews, Elijah Dresser, Josiah Cleave- 
laud, Jesse Smith, Philip Bagley, Need- 
ham Maynard, Roger Plaisted, Joseph 
Stephens, Nehemiah Porter, and James 
Harvey, who bore arms for their country 
either at Concord and Lexington, on the 
19th of April, or on Bunker Hill, all now 
far advanced in age, have come here to- 
day, to look once more on the field 
where their valor was proved, and to re- 
ceive a hearty outpouring of our respect. 

They have long outlived the troubles 
and dangers of the Revolution; they 
have outlived the evils arising from the 
want of a united and efficient govern- 
ment; they have outlived the menace of 
imminent dangers to the public liberty; 
they have outlived nearly all their con- 
temporaries ; — but they have not out- 
lived, they cannot outlive, the affection- 
ate gratitude of their country. Heaven 
has not allotted to this generation an 
opportunity of rendering high services, 
and manifesting strong personal devo- 
tion, such as they rendered and mani- 
fested, and in such a cause as that which 
roused the patriotic fires of their youth- 
ful breasts, and nerved the strength of 
their arms. But we may praise what 
we cannot equal, and celebrate actions 
which we were not born to perform. 
Pulchrum est henefacere reipuhlicce, etiam 
bene dicere hand ahsurdum est. 

The Bunker Hill Monument is fin- 
ished. Here it .stands. Fortunate in 
the high natural eminence on which it 
is placed, higher, infinitely higher in 
its objects and purpose, it rises over 
the land and over the sea; and, visi- 
ble, at their homes, to three hun- 
dred thousand of the people of Mas- 
sachusetts, it stands a memorial of 
the last, and a monitor to the present, 
and to all succeeding generations. I 
have spoken of the loftiness of its pur- 
pose. If it had been without any other 
design than the creation of a work of 
art, the granite of which it is composed 
would have slept in its native bed. It 
has a purpose, and that purpose gives 
it its cliaracter. That purpose enrobes it 
with dignity and moral grandeur. That 



/ 



/ 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



139 



well-known purpose it is which causes 
us to look up to it with a feeling of awe. 
It is itself the orator of this occasion. 
It is not from my lips, it could not be 
from any human lips, that that strain of 
eloquence is this day to flow most com- 
petent to move and excite the vast 
multitudes around me. The powerful 
speaker stands motionless before us. 
It is a plain shaft. It bears no inscrip- 
tions, fronting to tlie rising sun, from 
which the future antiquary shall wipe 
the dust. Nor does the rising sun cause 
tones of music to issue from its sunnnit. 
But at the rising of the sun, and at the 
setting of the sun ; in the blaze of noon- 
day, and beneath the milder effulgence 
of lunar light; it looks, it speaks, it 
acts, to the full comprehension of every 
American mind, and the awakening of 
glowing enthusiasm in every American 
heart. Its silent, but awful utterance; 
its deep pathos, as it brings to our con- 
templation the 17tii of June, 1775, and 
the consequences which have resulted to 
us, to our country, and to the world, 
from the events of that day, and which 
we know nmst continue to rain influence 
on the destinies of mankind to the end 
of time; the elevation with which it 
raises us high above the ordinary feel- 
ings of life, — surpass all that the study 
of the closet, or even the inspiration of 
genius, can produce. To-day it speaks 
to us. Its future auditories will be tlie 
successive generations of men, as they 
rise up before it and gather around it. 
Its speech will be of patriotism and 
courage; of civil and religious liberty; 
of free government; of the moral im- 
provement and elevation of mankind; 
and of the immortal memory of those 
who, with heroic devotion, have sacri- 
ficed their lives for their country. ^ 

In the older world, numerous fabrics 
still exist, reared by human hands, but 
whose object has been lost in the dark- 
ness of ages. They are now monuments 
of nothing but the labor and skill which 
constructed them. 

The mighty pyramid itself, half buried 
in the sands of Africa, has nothing to 

1 See the Note at the end of the Address. 



bring down and report to us, but thfe 
power of kings and the servitude of th6 
people. If it had any purpose beyond 
that of a mausoleum, such purpose has 
perished from history and from tradi- 
tion. If asked for its moral object, its 
admonition, its sentiment, its instruc- 
tion to mankind, or any high end in its 
erection, it is silent; silent as the mil- 
lions which lie in the dust at its base, 
and in the catacombs which surround 
it. Without a just moral object, there- 
fore, made known to man, though raised 
against the skies, it excites only convic- 
tion of power, mixed with strange won- 
der. But if the civilization of tlie pres- 
ent race of men, founded, as it is, in 
solid science, the true knowledge of na- 
ture, and vast discoveries in art, and 
which is elevated and purified by moral 
sentiment and by the truths of Chris- 
tianity, be not destined to destruction 
before the final termination of human 
existence on earth, the object and pur- 
pose of this edifice will be known till 
that hour shall come. And even if civ- 
ilization should be subverted, and the 
truths of the Christian religion obscured 
by a new deluge of barbarism, the 
memory of Bunker Ilill and the Ameri- 
can Revolution will still be elements and 
parts of the knowledge which shall be 
possessed by the last man to whom the 
light of civilization and Christianity 
shall be extended. 

This celebration is honored by the 
presence of the chief executive magis- 
trate of the Union. An occasion so na- 
tional in its object and character, and so 
much connected with that Revolution 
from which the government sprang at 
the head of which he is placed, may 
well receive from him this mark of at- 
tention and respect. Well acquainted 
with Yorktown, the scene of tlie last 
great military struggle of the Revolu- 
tion, his eye now surveys the field of 
Bunker Hill, the theatre of tlie first of 
those important conflicts. He sees wliere 
Warren fell, where Tiitnam, and Pres- 
cott, and Stark, and Kiiowlton, and 
Brooks fought. He bcliolds tlie spot 
where a thousand trained soldiers of 
England were smitten to the earth, in 



140 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



the first effort of revolutionary war, by 
the arm of a bold and determined yeo- 
manry, contending for liberty and their 
country. And while all assembled here 
enteitain towards him sincere personal 
good wishes and the high respect due to 
his elevated office and station, it is not 
to be doubted that he enters, with true 
American feeling, into the patriotic en- 
thusiasm kindled by the occasion which 
animates the multitudes that surround 
him. 

His Excellency, the Governor of the 
Commonwealth, the Governor of Rhode 
Island, and the other distinguished pub- 
lic men whom we have the honor to re- 
ceive as visitors and guests to-day, will 
cordially unite in a celebration connected 
with the great event of the Revolution- 
ary war. 

No name in the history of 1775 and 
1776 is more distinguished than that 
borne by an ex-President of the United 
States, whom we expected to see here, 
but whose ill health prevents his attend- 
ance. Whenever po^jular rights were to 
be asserted, an Adams was present; and 
when the time came for the formal Dec- 
laration of Independence, it was the 
voice of an Adams that shook the halls 
of Congress. We wish we could have 
welcomed to us this day the inheritor of 
Revolutionary blood, and the just and 
worthy representative of high Revolu- 
tionary names, merit, and services. 

Banners and badges, processions and 
flags, announce to us, that amidst this 
uncounted throng are thousands of na- 
tives of New England now residents in 
other States. Welcome, ye kindred 
names, with kindred blood ! From the 
broad savannas of the South, from the 
newer regions of the West, from amidst 
the hundreds of thousands of men of 
Eastern origin who cultivate the rich 
valley of the Genesee or live along the 
chain of the Lakes, from the mountains 
of Pennsylvania, and from the thronged 
cities of the coast, welcome, welcome ! 
Wherever else you may be strangers, 
here you are all at home. Yeu assem- 
ble at this shrine of liberty, near the 
family altars at which your earliest de- 
votions were paid to Heaven, near to 



the temples of worship first entered by 
you, and near to the schools and colleges 
in which your education was received. 
You come hither with a glorious ances- 
try of liberty. You bring names which 
are on the rolls of Lexington, Concord, 
and Bunker Hill. You come, some of 
you, once more to be embraced by an 
aged Revolutionary father, or to receive 
another, perhaps a last, blessing, be- 
stowed in love and tears, by a mother, 
yet surviving to witness and to enjoy 
your prosperity and happiness. 

But if family associations and the 
recollections of the past bring you hither 
with greater alacrity, and mingle with 
your greeting much of local attachment 
and private affection, greeting also be 
given, free and hearty greeting, to every 
American citizen who treads this sacred 
soil with patriotic feeling, and respires 
with pleasui-e in an atmosphere per- 
fumed with the recollections of 1775! 
This occasion is respectable, nay, it is 
grand, it is sublime, by the nationality 
of its sentiment. Among the seventeen 
millions of happy people who form the 
American community, there is not one 
who has not an interest in this monu- 
ment, as there is not one that has not a 
deep and abiding interest in that which 
it commemorates. 

Woe betide the man who brings to this 
day's worship feeling less than wholly 
American! Woe betide the man who 
can stand here with the fires of local 
resentments bui'ning, or the purpose of 
fomenting local jealousies and the strifes 
of local interests festering and rankling 
in his heart! Union, established in jus- 
tice, in patriotism, and the most plain 
and obvious common interest, — union, 
fomided on the same love of liberty, ce- 
mented by blood shed in the same com- 
mon cause, — union has been the source 
of all our glory and greatness thus far, 
and is the ground of all our highest 
hopes. This column stands on Union. 
I know not that it might not keep its 
position, if the American Union, in the 
mad conflict of human passions, and in 
the strife of parties and factions, should 
be broken up and destroyed. 1 know 
not that it would totter and fall to the 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



141 



earth, and mingle its fragments with the 
fragments of Liberty and the Consti- 
tution, when State should be separated 
from State, and faction and dismember- 
ment obliterate for ever all the hopes of 
the founders of our republic, and the 
great inheritance of their children. It 
might stand. But who, from beneath 
the weight of mortification and shame 
that would oppress him, could look up 
to behold it ? AV'hose eyeballs would 
not be seared by such a spectacle ? For 
my part, should I live to such a time, I 
shall avei't my eyes from it for ever. 

It is not as a mere militaiy encoun- 
ter of hostile armies that the battle of 
Bunker Hill presents its principal claim 
to attention. Yet, even as a mere bat- 
tle, there were circumstances attending 
it extraordinary in character, and enti- 
tling it to peculiar distinction. It was 
fought on this eminence ; in the neigh- 
borhood of yonder city ; in the presence 
of many more spectators than there were 
combatants in the conflict. Men, wo- 
men, and children, from every com- 
manding position, were gazing at the 
battle, and looking for its results with 
all the eagerness natural to those who 
knew that the issue was fraught with 
the deepest consequences to themselves, 
personally, as well as to their country. 
Yet, on the 16th of June, 1775, there 
was nothing around this hill but verdure 
and culture. There was, indeed, the 
note of awful preparation in Boston. 
There was the Provincial army at Cam- 
bridge, with its right flank resting on 
Dorchester, and its left on Chelsea. 
But here all was peace. Tranquillity 
reigned around. On the 17th, every 
thing was changed. On this eminence 
liad arisen, in the night, a redoubt, built 
by Prescott, and in which he held com- 
mand. Perceived by the enemy at dawn, 
it was immediately cannonaded from the 
floating batteries in the river, and from 
the opposite shore. And then ensued 
the hurried movement in Boston, and 
soon the troops of Britain embarked in 
the attempt to dislodge the Colonists. 
In an hour every thing indicated an im- 
mediate and bloody conflict. Love of 
liberty on one side, proud defiance of 



rebellion on the other, hopes and fears, 
and courage and daring, on both sides, 
animated the hearts of the combatants 
as they hung on the edge of battle. 

I suppose it would be ditficult, in a 
military point of view, to ascribe to the 
leaders on either side any just motive 
for the engagement which followed. On 
the one hand, it could not have been 
very important to the Americans to at- 
tempt to hem the British within the 
town, by advancing one single post a 
quarter of a mile; while, on the other 
hand, if the British found it essential to 
dislodge the American troops, they had 
it in their power at no expense of life. 
By moving up their ships and batteries, 
they could have conqiletely cut oft'. all 
communication with the mainland over 
the Neck, and the forces in the redoubt 
would have been reduced to a state of 
famine in forty-eight hours. 

But that was not the day for any such 
consideration on either side ! Both par- 
ties were anxious to try the strength 
of their arms. The pride of England 
would not permit the rebels, as she 
termed them, to defy her to the teeth; 
and, without for a moment calculating 
the cost, the British general determined 
to destroy the fort immediately. On the 
other side, Prescott and his gallant fol- 
lowers longed and thirsted for a decisive 
trial of strength and of courage. They 
wished a battle, and wished it at once. 
Arid this is the true secret of the move- 
ments on this hill. 

I will not attempt to describe that 
battle. The cannonading; the landing 
of the British ; their advance ; the cool- 
ness with which the charge was met; 
the repulse ; the second attack ; the sec- 
ond repulse; the burning of Charles- 
town; and. finally, the closing assault, 
and the slow retreat of the Americans, 
— the history of all these is familiar. 

But the conseipiences of the battle of 
Bunker Hill were greater than those of 
any ordinary conflict, although between 
armies of far greater force, and termi- 
nating with more immediate advantage 
on the one side or the other. It was the 
first great battle of the Revolution; and 
not only the first blow, but the blow 



142 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



which determined the contest. It did 
not, indeed, put an end to the war, but 
in the then existing hostile state of feel- 
ing, the difficulties could only be re- 
ferred to the arbitration of the sword. 
And one thing is certain : that after the 
New England troops had shown them- 
selves able to face and repulse the regu- 
lars, it was decided that peace never 
could be established, but upon the basis 
of the independence of the Colonies. 
When the sun of that day went down, 
the event of Independence was no longer 
doubtful. In a few days Washington 
heard of the battle, and he inquired if 
the militia had stood the fire of the reg- 
ulars. When told that they had not 
only stood that fire, but reserved their 
own till the enemy was within eight 
rods, and then poured it in with tre- 
mendous effect, " Then," exclaimed he, 
' ' the liberties of the country are safe ! ' ' 
• The consequences of this battle were 
just of the same importance as the Rev- 
olution itself. 

If there was nothing of value in the 
principles of the American Revolution, 
then there is nothing valuable in the 
battle of Bunker Hill and its conse- 
quences. But if the Revolution was an 
era in the history of man favorable to 
human happiness, if it was an event 
which marked the progress of man all 
over the world from despotism to lib- 
erty, then this monument is not raised 
without cause. Then the battle of 
Bunker Hill is not an event undeserving 
celebrations, commemorations, and re- 
joicings, now and in all coming times. 

What, then, is the true and peculiar 
principle of the American Revolution, 
and of the systems of government which 
it has confirmed and established? The 
truth is, that the American Revolution 
was not caused by the instantaneous dis- 
covery of principles of government be- 
fore unheard of, or the practical adoption 
of political ideas such as had never be- 
fore entered into the minds of men. It 
was but the full development of princi- 
ples of government, forms of society, 
and political sentiments, the origin of 
all which lay back two centuries in Eng- 
lish and American history. 



The discovery of America, its colo- 
nization by the nations of Europe, the 
history and progress of the colonies, 
from their establishment to the time 
when the principal of them threw off 
their allegiance to the respective states 
by which they had been planted, and 
founded governments of their own, con- 
stitute one of the most interesting por- 
tions of the annals of man. These 
events occupied three hundred years; 
during which period civilization and 
knowledge made steady progress in the 
Old World; so that Europe, at the com- 
mencement of the nineteenth century, 
had become greatly changed from that 
Europe which began the colonization of 
America at the close of the fifteenth, 
or the commencement of the sixteenth. 
And what is most material to my pres- 
ent purpose is, that in the progress of 
the first of these, centuries, that is to 
say, from the discovery of America to 
the settlements of Virginia and Massa- 
chusetts, political and religious events 
took place, which most materially af- 
fected the state of society and the senti- 
ments of mankind, especially in England 
and in parts of Continental Europe. 
After a few feeble and unsuccessful ef- 
forts by England, under Heni-y the 
Seventh, to plant colonies in America, 
no designs of that kind were prosecuted 
for a long period, either by the English 
government or any of its subjects. 
Without inquiring into the causes of 
this delay, its consequences are suffi- 
ciently clear and striking. England, in 
this lapse of a century, unknown to lier- 
self, but under the providence of God 
and the influence of events, was fitting 
herself for the work of colonizing North 
America, on such principles, and by such 
men, as should spread the English name 
and English blood, in time, over a great 
portion of the Western hemisphere. 
The commercial spirit was greatly fos- 
tered by several laws passed in the reign 
of Henry the Seventh ; and in the same 
reign encouragement was given to arts 
and manufactm-es in the eastern coun- 
ties, and some not unimportant modifi- i 
cations of the feudal system took place, 
by allowing the breaking of entails. 



COJirLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



143 



These and other measures, and other 
occurrences, were making way for a new 
class of society to emerge, and show it- 
self, in a military and feudal age; a 
middle class, between the barons or 
great landholders and the retainers of 
the crown, on the one side, and the ten- 
ants of the crown and barons, and agri- 
tultural and other laborers, on the other 
side. With the rise and growth of this 
new class of society, not only did com- 
merce and the arts increase, but better 
education, a greater degree of knowl- 
edge, juster notions of the true ends of 
government, and sentiments favorable 
to civil liberty, began to spread abroad, 
and become more and more common. 
But the plants springing from these 
seeds were of slow growth. The char- 
acter of English society had indeed be- 
gun to midergo a change ; but changes 
of national character are ordinarily the 
work of time. Operative causes were, 
however, evidently in existence, and 
sure to produce, ultimately, their proper 
effect. From the accession of Ilenry 
the Seventh to the breaking out of the 
civil wars, England enjoyed much greater 
exemption from war, foreign and do- 
mestic, than for a long period before, 
and during the controversy between the 
houses of York and Lancaster. These 
years of peace were favorable to com- 
merce and the arts. Commerce and the 
arts augmented general and individual 
knowledge; and knowledge is the only 
fountain, both of the love and the prin- 
ciples of human liberty. 

Other powerful causes soon came into 
active play. The Reformation of Luther 
broke out, kindling up the minds of men 
afresh, leading to new habits of thought, 
and awakening in individuals energies 
before unknown even to themselves. The 
religious controversies of this period 
changed society, as well as religion; in- 
deed, it would be easy to prove, if this 
occasion were proper for it, that they 
changed society to a considerable ex- 
tent, where they did not change the re- 
ligion of the state. They changed man 
himself, in his modes of thought, his 
consciousness of his own powers, and 
his desire of intellectual attainment. 



The spirit of commercial and foreign 
adventure, therefore, on the one hand, 
which had gained so much strength and 
influence since the time of the discovery 
of America, and, on the other, the asser- 
tion and maintenance of religious lib- 
erty, having their source indeed in the 
Reformation, but continued, diversified, 
and constantly strengthened by the sub- 
se(iuent divisions of sentiment and opin- 
ion among the Reformers tliemselves, 
and this love of religious liberty draw- 
ing after it, or bringing along with it, as 
it ahvays does, an ardent devotion to the 
principle of civil liberty also, were the 
powerful influences under which charac- 
ter was formed, and men trained, for the 
great work of introducing English civ- 
ilization, English law, and, what is more 
than all, Anglo-Saxon blood, into the 
wilderness of North America. Raleigh 
and his companions may be considered 
as the creatures, principally, of the first 
of these causes. High-spirited, full of 
the love of personal adventure, excited, 
too, in some degree, by the hopes of 
sudden riches from the discovery , of 
mines of the precious metals, and not 
unwilling to diversify the labors of set- 
tlinc: a colonv with occasional cruising 
against the Spaniards in the West In- 
dian seas, they crossed and recrossed the 
ocean, with a frequency which surprises 
us, when we consider the state of navi- 
gation, and which evinces a most daring 
spirit. 

The other cause peopled Xew England. 
The Majilower sought our shores under 
no high-wrought spirit of commercial 
adventure, no love of gold, no mixture 
of purpose warlike or hostile to any hu- 
man being. Like the dove from the ark, 
she had put forth only to find rest. Sol- 
emn supiilications on the shore of the 
sea, in IJolland, had invoked for her, 
at her departure, the blessings of Provi- 
dence. The stars which guidi'tl her were 
the unobscured constellations of civil and 
religious liberty. Her deck was the altar 
of the living fJod. Fervent prayers on 
bended knees mingled, morning and 
evening, with the voices of ocean, and 
the sighing of the wind in her shrouds. 
Every prosperous breeze, wliicli, gently 



144 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



swelling her sails, helped the Pilgrims 
onward in their course, awoke new an- 
thems of praise ; and when the elements 
were wrought into fury, neither the tem- 
pest, tossing their fragile bark like a 
feather, nor the darkness and howling 
of the midnight storm, ever disturbed, 
in man or Avoman, the firm and settled 
purpose of their souls, to undergo all, 
and to do all, that the meekest patience, 
the boldest resolution, and the highest 
trust in God, could enable human beings 
to suffer or to perform. 

Some differences may, doubtless, be 
traced at this day between the descend- 
ants of the early colonists of Virginia 
and those of New England, owing to 
the different influences and different 
circumstances under which the respec- 
tive settlements were made; but only 
enough to create a pleasing variety in 
the midst of a general family resem- 
blance. 

" Facies, non omnibus una. 
Nee diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum." 

But the habits, sentiments, and objects 
of both soon became modified by local 
causes, gi'owing out of their condition 
in the New World ; and as this condi- 
tion was essentially alike in both, and 
as both at once adopted the same gen- 
eral rules and principles of English juris- 
prudence, and became accustomed to the 
authority of representative bodies, these 
differences gradually diminished. They 
disappeared by the progress of time, and 
the influence of intercourse. The neces- 
sity of some degree of union and co-op- 
eration to defend themselves against the 
savage tribes, tended to excite in them 
mutual respect and regard. They fought 
together in the wars against France. The 
great and common cause of the Revolu- 
tion bound them to one another by new 
links of V^rotherhood ; and at length 
the present constitution of government 
united them happily and gloriously, to 
form the great republic of the world, 
and bound up their interests and for- 
tunes, till the whole earth sees that there 
is now for them, in present possession 
as well as in future hope, but "One 
Country, One Constitution, and One 
Destiny. ' ' 



The colonization of the tropical region, 
and the whole of the southern parts of 
the continent, by Spain and Portugal, 
was conducted on other principles, un- 
der the influence of other motives, and 
followed by far different consequences. 
From the time of its discovery, the 
Spanish government pushed forward its 
settlements in America, not only with 
vigor, but with eagerness; so that long 
before the first permanent English set- 
tlement had been accomplished in what 
is now the United States, Spain had 
conquered Mexico, Peru, and Chili, and 
stretched her power over nearly all the 
territory she ever acquired on this con- 
tinent. The rapidity of these conquests 
is to be ascribed in a great degree to 
the eagerness, not to say the rapacity, 
of those numerous bands of adventurers, 
who were stimulated by individual in- 
terests and private hopes to subdue im- 
mense regions, and take possession of 
them in the name of the crown of Spain. 
The mines of gold and silver were the 
incitements to these efforts, and accord- 
ingly settlements were generally made, 
and Spanish authority established im- 
mediately on the subjugation of terri- 
tory, that the native population might 
be set to work by their new Spanish 
masters in the mines. From these facts, 
the love of gold — gold, not produced by 
industry, nor accumulated by commerce, 
but gold dug from its native bed in the 
bowels of the earth, and that earth rav- 
ished from its rightful possessors by ev- 
ery possible degree of enormity, cruelty, 
and crime — was long the governing 
passion in Spanish wars and Spanish 
settlements in America. Even Columbus 
himself did not wholly escape the influ- 
ence of this base motive. In his early 
voyages we find him passing from island 
to island, inquiring eveiywhere for gold; 
as if God had opened the New World to 
the knowledge of the Old, only to gratify 
a passion equally senseless and sordid, 
and to offer up millions of an unoffend- 
ing race of men to the destruction of the 
sword, sharpened both by cruelty and 
rapacity. And yet Columbus was far 
above his age and country. Enthusi- 
astic, indeed, but sober, religious, and 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



145 



magnanimous; born to great things and 
capable of high sentiments, as his noble 
discourse before Ferdinand and Isabella, 
as well as the whole histoiy of his life, 
shows. Probably he sacrificed much to 
the known sentiments of others, and ad- 
dressed to his followers motives likely to 
influence them. At the same time, it is 
evident that he himself looked upon the 
world which he discovered as a world of 
wealth, all ready to be seized and en- 
joyed. 

The conquerors and the European 
settlers of Spanish America were mainly 
military commanders and common sol- 
diers. The monarchy of Spain was not 
transferred to this hemisphere, but it 
acted in it, as it acted at home, through 
its ordinary means, and its true repre- 
sentative, military force. The robbery 
and destruction of the native race was 
the achievement of standing armies, in 
the right of the king, and by his au- 
thority, fighting in his name, for the 
aggrandizement of his power and the ex- 
tension of his prerogatives, with military 
ideas under arbitrary maxims, — a por- 
tion of that dreadful instrumentality by 
which a perfect despotism governs a 
people. As there was no liberty in 
Spain, how could liberty be transmitted 
to Spanish colonies? 

The colonists of English America 
were of the people, and a people already 
free. They were of the middle, indus- 
trious, and already prosperous class, the 
inhabitants of commercial and manu- 
facturing cities, among whom liberty 
first revived and respired, after a sleep 
of a thousand years in the bosom of the 
Dark Ages. Spain descended on the 
New World in the armed and terrible 
image of her monarchy and her soldiery ; 
England approached it in the winning 
and popular garb of personal rights, 
public protection, and civil freedom. 
England transplanted liberty to Amer- 
ica; Spain transplanted power. Eng- 
land, through the agency of private 
companies and the efforts of individuals, 
colonized this part of North America 
by industrious individuals, making their 
own way in the wilderness, defending 
themselves against the savages, recog 



nizing their right to the soil, and with a 
general honest .purpose of introducing 
knowledge as well as Christianity among 
them. Spain stooped on South America, 
like a vulture on its prey. Every tiling 
was force. Territories were acquired by 
fire and sword. Cities were destroyed 
by fire and sword. Hundreds of thou- 
sands of human beings fell by fire and 
sword. I^ven conversion to Christianity 
was attempted by fire and sword. 

Behold, then, fellow-citizens, the dif- 
ference resulting from tlie operation of 
the two principles! Here, to-day, on 
the summit of Bunker Hill, and at the 
foot of this monument, behold the dif- 
ference I I would that the fifty thousand 
voices present could proclaim it with a 
shout which should be heard over the 
globe. Our inheritance was of liberty, 
secured and regulated by law, and en- 
lightened by religion and knowledge; 
that of South America was of power, 
stern, unrelenting, tyrannical, military 
power. And now look to the conse- 
quences of the two princix>les on the 
general and aggregate happiness of the 
hiunan race. Behold the results, in all 
the regions conquered by Cortez and 
Pizarro, and the contrasted results here. 
I suppose the territory of the United 
States may amount to one eighth, or 
one tenth, of that colonized by Spain 
on this continent ; and yet in all that 
vast region there are but between one 
and two millions of people of Euro- 
pean color and European blood, while 
in the United States there are four- 
teen millions who rejoice in their de- 
scent from the people of the more 
northern part of Europe. 

But we may follow the difference in 
the original principle of colonization, 
and in its character and objects, still 
further. We must look to moral and 
intellectual results; we must consider 
conseciuences, not only as they show 
themselves in hastening or retarding the 
increase of population and the sujiply of 
physical wants, but in their civilization, 
improvement, and happiness. We must 
inquire what progress has been made 
in the true science of liberty, in the 
knowledge of the great principles of self- 
10 



146 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



government, and in the progress of man, 
as a social, moral, and religious being. 

I would not willingly say any thing 
on this occasion discourteous to the new 
governments founded on the demolition 
of the power of the Spanish monarchy. 
They are yet on their trial, and I hope 
for a favorable result. But truth, sacred 
truth, and fidelity to the cause of civil 
liberty, compel me to say, that hitherto 
they have discovered quite too much of 
the spirit of that monarchy from which 
they separated themselves. Quite too 
frequent resort is made to military force ; 
and quite too much of the substance of 
the people is consumed in maintaining 
armies, not for defence against foreign 
aggression, but for enforcing obedience 
to domestic authority. Standing ai-mies 
are the oppressive instruments for gov- 
erning the people, in the hands of heredi- 
tary and arbitrary monarchs. A military 
republic, a government founded on mock 
elections and supported only by the sword, 
is a movement indeed, but a retrograde 
and disastrous movement, from the reg- 
ular and old-fashioned monarchical sys- 
tems. If men would enjoy the blessings 
of republican government, they must gov- 
ern themselves by reason, by mutual coun- 
sel and consultation, by a sense and feeling 
of general interest, and by the acquies- 
cence of the minority in the will of the 
majority, properly expressed ; and, above 
all, the military must be kept, according 
to the language of our Bill of Rights, in 
strict subordination to the civil author- 
ity. Wherever this lesson is not both 
learned and practised, there can be no 
political freedom. Absurd, preposter- 
ous is it, a scoff and a satire on free 
forms of constitutional liberty, for 
frames of government to be prescribed 
by military leaders, and the right of 
suffrage to be exercised at the point of 
the sword. 

Making all allowance for situation 
and climate, it cannot be doubted by 
intelligent minds, that the difference 
now existing between North and South 
America is justly attributable, in a great 
degree, to political institutions in the 
Old World and in the New. And how 
broad that difference is ! Suppose an 



assembly, in one of the valleys or on the 
side of one of the mountains of the 
southern half of the hemisphere, to be 
held, this day, in the neighborhood of a 
large city; — what would be the scene 
presented? Yonder is a volcano, flam- 
ing and smoking, but shedding no light, 
moral or intellectual. At its foot is the 
mine, sometimes yielding, perhaps, large 
gains to capital, but in which labor is 
destined to eternal and unrequited toil, 
and followed only by penury and beg- 
gary. The city is filled with armed 
men; not a free people, ai-med and com- 
ing forth voluntarily to rejoice in a public 
festivity, but hireling troops, supported 
by forced loans, excessive impositions on 
commerce, or taxes wrung from a half- 
fed and a half-clothed population. For 
the great there are palaces covered with 
gold; for the poor there are hovels of 
the meanest sort. There is an ecclesias- 
tical hierarchy, enjoying the wealth of 
princes ; but there are no means of edu- 
cation for the people. Do public im- 
provements favor intercourse between 
place and place? So far from this, the 
traveller cannot pass from town to town, 
without danger, every mile, of robbery 
and assassination. I would not over- 
charge or exaggerate this picture; but 
its principal features are all too truly 
sketched. 

And how does it contrast with the 
scene now actually before us? Look 
round upon these fields; they are ver- 
dant and beautiful, well cultivated, and 
at this moment loaded with the riches of 
the early harvest. The hands which till 
them are those of the free owners of 
the soil, enjoying equal rights, and pro- 
tected by law from oppression and tyr- 
anny. Look to the thousand vessels in 
our sight, filling the harbor, or covering 
the neighboring sea. They are the 
vehicles of a profitable commerce, car- 
ried on by men who know that the profits 
of their hardy enterprise, when they 
make them, are their own; and this 
commerce is encouraged and regulated 
by wise laws, and defended, when need 
be, by the valor and patriotism of the 
country. Look to that fair city, the 
abode of so much dilfused wealth, t^o 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



14' 



much general happiness and comfort, 
so much personal independence, and so 
much general knowledge, and not un- 
distinguished, I may be permitted to 
add, for hospitality and social refine- 
ment. She fears no forced contribu- 
tions, no siege or sacking from military 
leaders of rival factions. The hundred 
temples in which her citizens worship 
God are in no danger of sacrilege. The 
regular ailininistration of the laws en- 
counters no obstacle. The long proces- 
sions of children and youth, which you 
see this day, issuing by thousands from 
her free schools, prove the care and 
anxiety with which a popular govern- 
ment provides for the education and 
morals of the people. Everywhere there 
is order; everj'where there is security. 
Everywhere the law reaches to the 
highest and reaches to the lowest, to 
protect all in their rights, and to re- 
strain all from wrong; and over all 
hovers liberty, — that liberty for which 
our fathers fought and fell on this very 
spot, with her eye ever watchful, and 
her eagle wing ever wide outspread. 

The colonies of Spain, from their 
origin to their end, were subject to the 
sovereign authority of the mother coun- 
try. Their government, as well as their 
commerce, was a strict home monopoly. 
If we add to this the established usage 
of filling important posts in the admin- 
istration of the colonies exclusively by 
natives of Old Spain, thus cutting off 
for ever all hopes of honorable prefer- 
ment from every man born in the West- 
ern hemisphere, causes enough rise up 
before us at once to account fully for 
the subsequent histoiy and character of 
these provinces. The viceroys and pro- 
vincial governors of Spain were never at 
liome in their governments in America. 
They did not feel that they were of 
the people whom they governed. Their 
otficial character and employment have 
a good deal of resemblance to those of 
the proconsuls of Rome, in Asia, Sicily, 
and Gaul; but obviously no resenil)lance 
to those of Carver and Wiiitluriii, and 
very little to those of the governors of 
Virginia after that Colony had estab- 
lished a popular House of LJurgesses. 



The English colonists in Ameri 
generally speaking, were men who v 
seeking new homes in a new wi 
They brought with them their far : 
and all that was most dear to 
This was especially the case w i 
colonists of Ply mouth and Ma 
setts. Many of them were e'lunited 
men, and all possessed their ft 
according to their social cone' ■ 
the knowledge and attainment- 
age. The distinctive chara .tt 

their settlement is the intr 
the civilization of Europe 
derness, without bringing 
political institutions of 
arts, sciences, and literati li 

came over with the settle ' :: eat 

portion of the common >>■ pa- 

lates the social andpers , ,^ imd 

conduct of men, cam' ,m ! jiiry 
came: the habeas corj-u can tes- 

tamentary power ca' aw of 

inheritance and dese . ixcept 

that part of it whicl ; righta 

of primogeniture, v.l n,, did not 

come at all, or soon gave \>..^ the rule 
of equal partition of estates among chil- 
dren. But the monarchy did not come, 
nor the aristocracy, nor the church, as 
an estate of the realm. Political insti- 
tutions were to be framed anew, such as 
should be adapted to the state of things. 
But it could not be doubtful what should 
be the nature and character of these in- 
stitutions. A general social e(|uality 
prevailed among the settlers, and an 
equality of political rights seemed the 
natural, if not the necessary conse- 
quence. After forty years of revolution, 
violence, and war, the people of France 
have placed at the liead of the fund.a- 
mental instrument of tlieir governnu/nt, 
as the great boon obtained by all their 
sufferings and sacrifices, the declaration 
that all Frenchmen are equal bi'f<ire the 
law. Wliat France has reached only by 
the expenditure of so much blood and 
treasure, and the perpetration of so mucii 
crime, the English colonists obtaineil 
by simply changing their place, carrying 
with them the intellectual and moral 
culture of Europe, and the personal and 
social relations to which tiiey were iiccus- 



'8 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



^■)lTlod, but leaving behind their polit- 
li 1,1 :i.stitutions. It has been said with 
I'.i'cii ivacity, that the felicity of the 
J\ ■:. , ' .'1 colonists consisted in their es- 
the past. This is true so far 
political establishments, but 
further. They brought with them a 
lull ■ ' all the riches of the past, 

i; art, in morals, religion, 

aui The Bible came with 

th And ji is not to be doubted, that 

to lui. iVee ami -universal reading of the 
Bible, id that age, men were much in- 
debt<id for right views of civil liberty. 
The Bible is a book of faith, and a 
book of doctrine, and a book of morals, 
and a book of religion, of especial reve- 
lation from God; but it is also a book 
which teaches man his own individual 
responsibility, his own dignity, and his 
equality with his fellow-man. 

Bacon and Locke, and Shakspeare 
and Milton, also came with the colonists. 
It was the object of the first settlers 
to form new political systems, but all 
that belonged to cultivated man, to fam- 
ily, to neighborhood, to social relations, 
accompanied them. In the Doric phrase 
of one of our own historians, " they 
came to settle on bare creation"; but 
their settlement in the wilderness, never- 
theless, was not a lodgement of nomadic 
tribes, a mere resting-place of roaming 
savages. It was the beginning of a per- 
manent community, the fixed residence 
of cultivated men. Not only was Eng- 
lish literature read, but English, good 
English, was spoken and written, before 
the axe had made way to let in the sun 
upon the habitations and fields of Ply- 
mouth and Massachusetts. And what- 
ever may be said to the contrary, a 
correct use of the English language is, 
at this day, more general throughout 
the United States, than it is throughout 
England herself. 

But another grand characteristic is, 
that, in the English colonies, political 
affairs were left to be managed by the 
colonists themselves. This is another 
fact wholly distinguishing them in char- 
acter, as it has distinguished them in 
fortune, from the colonists of Spain. 
Here lies the foundation of that expe- 



rience in self-government, which has 
preserved order, and security, and reg- 
ularity, amidst the play of popular insti- 
tutions. Home government was the 
secret of the prosperity of the North 
American settlements. The more dis- 
tinguished of the New England colonists, 
with a most remarkable sagacity and a 
long-sighted reach into futurity, refused 
to come to America unless they could 
bring with them charters providing for 
the administration of their affairs in 
this country. 1 They saw from the first 
the evils of being governed in the New 
World by a poM'er fixed in the Old. 
Acknowledging the general superiority 
of the crown, they still insisted on the 
right of passing local laws, and of local 
administration. And history teaches us 
the justice and the value of this deter- 
mination in the example of Virginia. 
The early attempts to settle that Colony 
failed, sometimes with the most melan- 
choly and fatal consequences, from want 
of knowledge, care, and attention on the 
pai't of those who had the charge of 
their affairs in England; and it was only 
after the issuing of the third chartei-, 
that its prosperity fairly commenced. 
The cause was, that by that third 
charter the people of Virginia, for by 
this time they deserved to be so called, 
were allowed to constitute and estab- 
lish the first popular representative 
assemJjly which ever convened on this 
continent, the Vii'ginia House of Bur- 
gesses. 

The great elements, then, of the 
American system of government, origi- 
nally introduced by the colonists, and 
which were early in operation, and ready 
to be developed, more and more, as the 
progress of events should justify or de- 
mand, were, — 

Escape from the existing political sys- 
tems of Europe, including its religious 
hierarchies, but the continued possession 
and enjoyment of its science and arts, 
its literature, and its manners; 

Home government, or the power of i 

1 See the "Records of the Company of the 
Massachusetts Bay in New England," as pitb- 
lislied in the third vohuiie of the Transactions 
of the American' Antiquarian Society, pp. 47-50. 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



149 



making in the colony the municipal laws 
vvhicli were to govern it; 

Equality of rights ; 

Representative assemblies, or forms of 
government founded on popular elec- 
tions. 

Few topics are more inviting, or more 
fit for philosophical discussion, than the 
effect on the happiness of mankind of 
institutions founded upon tliese princi- 
ples; or, in other words, the influence 
of the New World upon the Old. 

Her obligations to Europe for science 
and art, laws, literature, and manners, 
America acknowledges as she ought, 
with respect and gratitude. The people 
of the United States, descendants of the 
English stock, grateful for the treasures 
of knowledge derived from their English 
ancestors, admit also, with thanks and 
filial regard, that among those ancestors, 
under the culture of Hampden and Syd- 
ney and other assiduous friends, that 
seed of popular liberty first germinated, 
■which on our soil has shot up to its full 
height, until its branches overshadow 
all the land. 

But i\.merica has not failed to make 
returns. If she has not wholly cancelled 
the obligation, or equalled it by others 
of like weight, she has, at least, made 
respectable advances towards repaying 
the debt. And she admits, that, stand- 
ing in the midst of civilized nations, and 
in a civilized age, a nation among na- 
tions, there is a high part which she is 
expected to act, for the general advance- 
ment of human interests and human 
welfare. 

American mines have filled the mints 
of Europe with the precious Tiietals. 
The productions of the American soil 
and climate have poured out their abun- 
dance of luxuries for the tables of the 
rich, and of necessaries for the suste- 
nance of the poor. Birds and animals of 
beauty and value have been added to the 
Euro[iean stocks; and transplantations 
from the unequalled riches of our forests 
liave mingled tliemselves profust-ly with 
the elms, and ashes, and Drnidical oaks 
of England. 

America has made contributions to 



Europe far more important. Who can 
estimate the amount, or tlie value, of 
the augmentation of the commerce of 
the world tliat has resulted from Amer- 
ica? Wiio can imagine to himself what 
would now be the shock to tlie East- 
ern Continent, if the Atlantic were no 
longer traversable, or if there were no 
longer American productions, or Amer- 
ican markets? 

But America exercises influences, or 
holds out examples, for the considera- 
tion of the Old World, of a much 
higher, because tliey are of a moral and 
political character. 

America has furnished to Europe proof 
of the fact, that popular institutions, 
founded on equality and the principle of 
representation, are capable of maintain- 
ing governments, able to secure the 
rights of person, property, and reputa- 
tion. 

America has proved that it is practi- 
cable to elevate the mass of mankind, 
— that portion which in Europe is 
called the laboring, or lower class, — to 
raise them to self-respect, to make them 
competent to act a part in the great 
right and great duty of self-government; 
and she has proved that this may be done 
by education and the diffusion of knowl- 
edge. She holds out an example, a thou- 
sand times more encouraging than ever 
was presented before, to those nine tenths 
of the human race who are born without 
hereditary fortune or hereditary rank. 

America has furnished to the world 
the character of Washington! And if 
our American institutions had done 
nothing else, that alone would have 
entitled them to the respect of man- 
kind. 

Washington! "First in war, first 
in peace, and first in the hearts of his 
countrymen!" Washington is all our 
own ! The enthusiastic veneration and 
regard in which the j>i'ople of the United 
States hold him, prove tliem to be wor- 
thy of such a countryman; while his 
reputation abroad reflects the highest 
honor on his country. I would cheer- 
fully put the (pifstion to-day to the 
intelligence of Europe and tlie world, 
what character of the century, ujwn tiie 



150 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



■whole, stands out in the relief of his- 
tory, most pure, most respectable, most 
sublime; and I doubt not, that, by a 
suffrage approaching to unanimity, the 
ans\A"er would be Washington! 
•( The structure now standing before us, 
by its uprightness, its solidity, its dura- 
bility, is no unfit emblem of his char- 
acter. His public virtues and public 
princij^les were as firm as the earth on 
which it stands; his personal motives, 
as pure as the serene heaven in which 
its summit is lost. But, indeed, though 
a fit, it is an inadequate emblem. Tow- 
ering high above the column which our 
hands have builded, beheld, not by the 
inhabitants of a single city or a single 
State, but by all the families of man, 
ascends the colossal grandeur of the 
character and life of Washington. In 
all the constituents of the one, in all the 
acts of the other, in all its titles to im- 
mortal love, admiration, and renown, it 
is an American production. It is the 
embodiment and vindication of our 
Ti-ansatlantic liberty. Born upon our 
soil, of parents also born upon it; never 
for a moment having had sight of the 
Old World; instructed, according to the 
modes of his time, only in the spare, 
plain, but wholesome elementary knowl- 
edge which our institutions provide for 
the children of the people; growing up 
beneath and penetrated by the genuine 
influences of American society; living 
from infancy to manhood and age 
amidst our expanding, but not luxurious 
civilization ; partaking in our great des- 
tiny of labor, our long contest with un- 
reclaimed nature and uncivilized man, 
our agony of glory, the war of Indepen- 
dence, our great victory of peace, the 
formation of the Union, and the es- 
tablishment of the Constitution, — he is 
all, all our own ! Washington is ours. 
That crowded and glorious life, 

" Where multitudes of virtues passed along, 
Each pressing foremost, in the mighty throng 
Ambitious to be seen, then making room 
For greater multitudes that were to come," — 

that life was the life of an American 
citizen. 

I claim him for America. In all the 



perils, in every darkened moment of the 
state, in the midst of the i-eproaches of 
enemies and the misgiving of friends, I 
turn to that transcendent name for cour- 
age and for consolation. To him who 
denies or doubts whether our fervid lib- 
erty can be combined with law, with 
order, with the security of property, with 
the pursuits and advancement of happi- 
ness ; to him who denies that our forms 
of government are capable of producing 
exaltation of soul, and the passion of 
true glory ; to him who denies that we 
have contributed any thing to the stock 
of great lessons and great exainples ; — 
to all these I reply by pointing to Wash- 
ington ! 

And now, friends and fellow-citizens, 
it is time to bring this discourse to a 
close. c? 

We have indulged in gratifying recol- 
lections of the past, in the prosperity 
and pleasures of the present, and in high 
hopes for the future. But let us remem- 
ber that we have duties and obligations 
to perform, corresponding to the bless- 
ings which we enjoy. Let us remember 
the trust, the sacred trust, attaching to 
the rich inheritance which we have re- 
ceived from our fathers. Let us feel our 
personal responsibility, to the full extent 
of our power and influence, for the pres- 
ervation of the principles of civil and_ 
religious liberty. And let us remember 
that it is only religion, and morals, and 
knowledge, that can make men respecta- 
ble and happy, under any form of govern- 
ment. Let us hold fast the great truth, 
that communities are responsible, as 1 
well as individuals; that no government 
is respectable, which is not just; that / 
without unspotted purity of public faith, \j^ 
without sacred public principle, fidelity, 
and honor, no mere forms of govern- 
ment, no machinery of laws, can give 
dignity to political society. In our day 
and generation let us seek to raise and 
improve the moral sentiment, so that we 
may look, not for 'a degraded, but for 
an elevated and improved future. And 
when both we and our children shall 
have been consigiied to the house ap- 
pointed for all living, may love of coun- 



COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 



151 



try and pride of country glow with equal 
fervor among those to whom our names 
and our blood shall have descended! 
And then, when honored and decrepit 
age sliall lean against the base of this 
monument, and troops of ingenuous youth 
shall be gathered round it, and when 



the one shall speak to the other of ita 
objects, the purposes of its construction, 
and the great and glorious events with 
which it is connected, there shall rise 
from every youthful breast the ejacula- 
tion, " Thank God, I — I also — am ax 
American!" ^ 



NOTE. 



Page 139. 

The following description of the Bunker 
Hill Monument and Square is from Mr. 
Frothingham's History of the Siege of Bos- 
ton, pp. 355, 356. 

"Monument Square is four hundred and 
seventeen feet from north to south, and four 
hundred feet from east to west, and contains 
nearly six acres. It embraces the whole site of 
the redoubt, and a part of the site of the breast- 
work. According to the most accurate plan of 
the town and the battle (Page's), the monument 
stands where the southwest angle of the redoubt 
was, and the whole of the redoubt was between 
the monument and the street that bounds it on 
the west. The small mound in the northeast 
corner of the square is supposed to be the re- 
mains of the breastwork. Warren fell about 



two hundred feet west of the monument. An 
iron fence encloses the square, and another sur- 
rounds the monument. Tiie square has en- 
trances on each of its sides, and at each of its 
corners, and is surrounded by a walk and rows of 
trees. 

" The obelisk is thirty feet in diameter at the 
base, about fifteen feet at the top of the trim- 
cated part, and was designed to be two hundred 
and twenty feet high ; but the mortar and the 
seams between the stones make the precise 
height two hundred and twent\--one feet. With- 
in the shaft is a hollow cone, with a spiral stair- 
way winding round it to its summit, wliich 
enters a circular chamber at the top. There are 
ninety courses of stone in the shaft, — six of 
them below the ground, and eighty-four above 
the ground. The capstone, or apex, is a single 
stone four feet square at the base, and three feet 
six inches in height, weighing two and a half 
tons." 



OUR RELATIONS TO THE SOUTH AMERICAN 

REPUBLICS. 

EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECH ON " THE PANAMA MISSION," DELIVERED IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 14th 
OF APRIL, 1826. 



It has been affirmed, that this meas- 
ure, and the sentiments expressed by the 
Executive relative to its objects, are an 
acknowledged departure from the neu- 
tral policy of the United States. Sir, 
I deny that there is an acknowledged 
departure, or any departure at all, from 
the neutral policy of the country. What 
do we mean by our neutral policy? Not, 
I suppose, a blind and stupid indiffei-- 
ence to whatever is passing around us; 
not a total disregard to approaching 
events, or approaching evils, till they 
meet us full in the face. Nor do we 
mean, by our neutral policy, that we in- 
tend never to assert our rights by force. 
No, Sir. We mean by our policy of neu- 
trality, that the great objects of national 
pursuit with us are connected with peace. 
We covet no provinces ; we desire no con- 
quests ; we entertain no ambitious proj- 
ects of aggrandizement by war. This is 
our policy. But it does not follow from 
this, that we rely less than other nations 
on our own power to vindicate our own 
rights. We know that the last logic of 
kings is also our last logic ; that our own 
interests must be defended and main- 
tained by our own arm ; and that peace or 
war may not always be of our own choos- 
ing. Our neutral policy, therefore, not 
only justifies, but requires, our anxious 
attention to the political events which 
take place in the world, a skilful percep- 
tion of their relation to our own concerns, 
and an early anticipation of their conse- 
quences, and firm and timely assertion of 
what we hold to be our own rights and 



our own interests. Our neutrality is not 
a predetermined abstinence, either from 
remonstrances, or from force. Our neu- 
tral policy is a policy that protects neu- 
trality, that defends neutrality, that 
takes up arms, if need be, for neutral- 
ity. When it is said, therefore, that 
this measure departs from our neutral 
policy, either that policy, or the measure 
itself, is misunderstood. It implies either 
that the object or the tendency of the 
measure is to involve us in the war of 
other states, which I think cannot be 
shown, or that the assertion of our own 
sentiments, on points aifecting deeply 
our own interests, may jalace us in a hos- 
tile attitude toward other states, and 
that therefore we depart from neutral- 
ity; whereas the truth is, that the deci- 
sive assertion and the firm support of 
these sentiments may be most essential 
to the maintenance of neutrality. 

An honorable member from Pennsyl- 
vania thinks this congress will bring a 
dark day over the United States. Doubt- 
less, Sir, it is an interesting moment in 
our history ; but I see no great proofs of 
thick-coming darkness. But the object 
of the remark seemed to be to show that 
the President himself saw difficulties on 
all sides, and, making a choice of evils, 
preferred rather to send ministers to this 
congress, than to run the risk of exciting 
the hostility of the states by refusing to 
send. In other woi'ds, the gentleman 
wished to prove that the President in- 
tended an alliance ; although such inten- 
tion is expressly disclaimed. 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 



153 



Much commentary has been bestowed 
on the letters of invitation from the min- 
isters. I shall not go through with ver- 
bal criticisms on these letters. Their 
general import is plain enough. I shall 
not gather together small and minute 
quotations, taking a sentence here, a 
word there, and a syllable in a third 
jilace, dovetailing them into the course 
of remark, till the printed discourse 
bristles in every line with inverted com- 
mas. I look to the general tenor of the 
invitations, and I find that we are asked 
to take part only in such things as con- 
cern ourselves. I look still more care- 
fully to the answers, and I see every 
proper caution and proper guard. I look 
to the message, and I see that nothing is 
there contemplated likely to involve us 
in other men's quarrels, or that may 
justly give offence to any foreign state. 
With this I am satisfied. 

I must now ask the indulgence of the 
committee to an important point in the 
discussion, I mean the declaration of 
the President in 1823.1 ]sfot only as a 
member of the House, but as a citizen 
of the country, I have an anxious de- 
sire that this part of our public history 
should stand in its proper light. The 
country has, in my judgment, a very 
high honor connected with tliat occur- 
rence, which we may maintain, or which 
we may sacrifice. I look upon it as a 
part of its treasures of reputation; and, 
for one, I intend to guard it. 

1 In the message of President Monroe to 
Congress at the commencement of the session 
of 1823-24, tile following passage occurs : — 
"In the wars of the European powers, in mat- 
ters relating to themselves, we have never 
taken any part, nor does it comport with our 
polic}- so to do. It is only when our rights 
are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we re- 
sent injuries or make preparations for defence. 
Witli the movements in this liemispliere we are 
of necessity more immediately connected, and 
by causes which must be obvious to all en- 
liglitened and impartial observers. The politi- 
cal system of the Allied Powers is essentially 
different, in tiiis respect, from tliat of America. 
This difference proceeds from that which exists 
in their respective governments. And to the 
defence of our own, which has been achieved 
by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and 
matured by the wisdom of their most enlight- 



Sir, let us recur to the important po- 
litical events which led to that declara- 
tion, or accompanied it. In tlie fall of 
1822, the allied sovereigns held their 
congress at Verona. The great subject 
of consideration was the condition of 
Spain, that country then being under 
the government of the Cortes. The ques- 
tion was, whether Ferdinand should be 
reinstated in all his authority, by the 
intervention of foreign force. Russia, 
Prussia, France, and Austria were in- 
clined to that measure; England dis- 
sented and protested ; but the course was 
agreed on, and France, with the consent 
of these other Continental powers, took 
the conduct of the operation into her 
own hands. In the spring of 1823, a 
French army was sent into Spain. Its 
success was complete. The popular gov- 
ernment was overthrown, and Ferdinand 
re-established in all liis power. This 
invasion. Sir, was determined on, and 
undertaken, precisely on the doctrines 
which the allied monarchs had pro- 
claimed the year before, at Laybach; 
that is, that they had a right to interfere 
in the concerns of another state, and re- 
form its government, in order to prevent 
the effects of its bad example ; this bad 
example, be it remembered, always be- 
ing the example of free government. 
Now, Sir, acting on this principle of 
supposed dangerous example, and hav- 
ing put down the example of the Cortes 
in Spain, it was natural to inquire with 

ened citizens, and under which we have en- 
joyed such unexampled felicity, this whole 
nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to 
candor, and to the amicable relations existing 
between the United States and those powers, to 
declare that we should consider any attempt on 
their part to extend their system to any portion 
of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace 
and safety. With the existing coh.nies or de- 
pendencies of any European power, we have 
not interfered, and siuill not interfere. But 
with the governments who have declared their 
independence and maintained it, and whose in- 
dependence we have on great consideration and 
on just principles acknowledged, we could not 
view any interposition for the purpose of op- 
pressing them, or controlling in any other man- 
ner their destiny, in any other light than as the 
manifestation of an unfriendly disposition to- 
ward the United States." 



154 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 



what eyes they would look on the colo- 
nies of Spain, that were following still 
worse examples. Would King Ferdi- 
nand and his allies be content with what 
had been done in Spain itself, or would 
he solicit their aid, and was it likely 
they would grant it, to subdue his re- 
bellious American provinces? 

Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, 
on an occasion which has already been 
alluded to, that I ventured to say, early 
in the session of December, 1823, that 
these allied monarchs might possibly 
turn their attention to America; that 
America came within their avowed doc- 
trine, and that her examples might very 
possibly attract their notice. The doc- 
trines of Laybach were not limited to 
any continent. Spain had colonies in 
America, and having reformed Spain 
herself to the true standard, it was not 
impossible that they might see fit to 
complete the work by reconciling, in 
their way, the colonies to the mother 
country. Now, Sir, it did so happen, 
that, as soon as the Spanish king was 
completely re-established, he invited the 
co-operation of his allies in i-egard to 
South America. In the same month of 
December, of 1823, a formal invitation 
was addressed by Spain to the courts 
of St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and 
Paris, proposing to establish a confer- 
ence at Paris, in order that the plenipo- 
tentiaries there assembled might aid 
Spain in adjusting the affairs of her 
revolted provinces. These affairs were 
proposed to be adjusted in such manner 
as should retain the sovereignty of Spain 
over them ; and though the co-operation 
of the allies by force of arms was not 
directly solicited, such was evidently the 
object aimed at. The king of Spain, in 
making this request to the members of 
the Holy Alliance, argued as it has been 
seen he might argue. He quoted their 
own doctrines of Laybach; he pointed 
out the pernicious example of America ; 
and he reminded them that their success 
in Spain itself luid paved the way for 
successful operations against the spirit 
of liberty on this side of the Atlantic. 

The proposed meeting, however, did 
not take place. England had already 



taken a decided course ; for as early as 
October, Mr. Canning, in a conference 
with the French minister in London, 
informed him distinctly and expressly, 
tliat England would consider any foreign 
interference, by force or by menace, in 
the dispute between Spain and the colo- 
nies, as a motive for recognizing the lat- 
ter without delay. It is probable this 
determination of the English govern- 
ment was known here at the commence- 
ment of the session of Congress ; and it 
was under these circumstances, it was in 
this crisis, that Mr. Monroe's declara- 
tion was made. It was not then ascer- 
tained whether a meeting of the Allies 
would or would not take place, to con- 
cert with Spain the means of re-estab- 
lishing her power; but it was plain 
enough they would be pressed by Spain 
to aid her operations ; and it was plain 
enough, also, that they had no particular 
liking to what was taking place on this 
side of the Atlantic, nor any great disin- 
clination to interfere. This was the pos- 
ture of affairs ; and, Sir, I concur entirely 
in the sentiment expressed in the resolu- 
tion of a gentleman from Pennsylvania, ^ 
that this declaration of Mr. jMonroe was 
wise, seasonable, and patriotic. 

It has been said, in the course of this 
debate, to have been a loose and vague 
declaration. It was, I believe, suffi- 
ciently studied. I have understood, 
from good authority, that it was con- 
sidered, weighed, and distinctly and 
decidedly approved, by every one of the 
President's advisers at that time. Om* 
government could not adopt on that oc- 
casion precisely the course which Eng- 
land had taken. England threatened 
the immediate recognition of the prov- 
inces, if the Allies should take part 
with Spain against them. We had al- 
ready recognized them. It remained, 
therefore, only for our government to 
say how we should consider a combina- 
tion of the Allied Powers, to effect ob- 
jects in America, as affecting om'selves ; 
and the message was intended to say, 
what it does say, that we should regard 
such combination as dangerous to us. 
Sir, I agree with those who maintain the 

1 Mr. Markley. 



THE PANAMA MISSION. 



155 



proposition, and I contend against those 
who deny it, that the message did mean 
something ; that it ra«ant much ; and I 
maintain, against both, that the declara- 
tion effected much good, answered the 
end designed by it, did great honor to 
the foresight and the spirit of the gov- 
ernment, and that it cannot now be 
taken back, retracted, or annulled, with- 
out disgrace. It met. Sir, with the entire 
concurrence and the hearty approbation 
of the country. The tone which it 
uttered found a corresponding response 
in the breasts of the free people of the 
United States. That people saw, and 
they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occa- 
sion, our weight had been thrown into 
the right scale, and that, without de- 
parting from our duty, we had done 
something useful, and something effect- 
ual, for the cause of civil liberty. One 
general glow of exultation, one uni- 
versal feeling of the gratified love of 
liberty, one conscious and proud per- 
ception of the consideration which the 
country possessed, and of the respect 
and honor which belonged to it, per- 
vaded all bosoms. Possibly the public 
enthusiasm went too far; it certainly 
did go far. But, Sir, the sentiment 
which this declaration inspired was not 
confined to oui'selves. Its force was 
felt everywhere, by all those who could 
understand its object and foresee its 
effect. In that very House of Com- 
mons of which the gentleman from 
South Carolina has spoken with such 
commendation, how was it received? 
Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I 
may say, with no little enthusiasm. 
While the leading minister ^ expressed 
his entire concurrence in the sentiments 
and opinions of the American President, 
his distinguished competitor- in that 
popular body, less restrained by official 
decorum, and more at liberty to give 
utterance to all the ftseling of tlie occa- 
sion, declared that no event had ever 
created greater joy, exultation, and grat- 
itude among all the fi'ee men in Europe; 
that he felt pride in being connected 
by blood and language with the people 
of the United States; that the policy 



1 Mr. Canniii''. 



2 Mr. Brouirham. 



disclosed by the message became a great, 
a free, and an independent nation ; and 
that he hoped his own country would 
be prevented by no mean pride, or 
paltry jealousy, from following so noble 
and glorious an example. 

It is doubtless true, as I took occa- 
sion to observe the other day, that this 
declaration must be considei-ed as found- 
ed on our rights, and to spring mainly 
from a regard to their preservation. It 
did not commit us, at all events, to take 
up arms on any indication of hostile 
feeling by the powers of Europe to- 
wards South America. If, for ex- 
ample, all the states of Europe had 
refused to trade with South America 
until her states should return to tlieir 
former allegiance, that would have fur- 
nished no cause of interference to us. 
Or if an armament had been furnished 
by the Allies to act against provinces 
the most remote from us, as Chili or 
Buenos Ay res, the distance of the scene 
of action diminishing our ai:)prehensiou 
of danger, and diminishing also our 
means of effectual interposition, might 
still have left us to content ourselves 
with remonstrance. But a very differ- 
ent case would have arisen, if an army, 
equijjped and mauitained by these pow- 
ers, had been landed on the shores of 
the Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the 
war in our own immediate neighbor- 
hood. Such an event might justly be 
regarded as dangerous to ourselves, 
and, on that ground, call for decided 
and immediate interference by us. The 
sentiments and the policy announced by 
the declaration, thus understood, were, 
therefore, in strict conformity to our 
duties and our interest. 

Sir, I look on the message of De- 
cember, 18:2;}, as forming a bright page 
in our history. I will help neither to 
erase it nor tear it out; nor sliall it be, 
by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. 
It did honor to the sagacity of the gov- 
ernment, and I will not diminish that 
honor. It elevated the hopes, and 
gratified the patriotism, of the people. 
Over those hopes I will not bring a mil- 
dew; nor will I put that gratified patri- 
otism to shame. 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



A DISCOURSE IN COMMEMORATION OF THE LIVES AND SERVICES OF JOHN 
ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, DELIVERED IN FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, 
ON THE 2d of AUGUST, 1826. 



[Since the decease of General Washing- 
ton, on the 14th of December, 1799, the 
public mind has never been so powerfully 
affected in this part of the country by any 
similar event, as by the death of John 
Adams, on the 4th of July, 1826. The 
news reached Boston in the evening of that 
day. The decease of this venerable fellow- 
citizen must at all times have appealed 
with much force to the patriotic sympathies 
of the people of Massachusetts. It ac- 
quired a singular interest from the year 
and the day on which it took place ; — the 
4th of July of the year completing the half- 
century from that ever memorable era in 
the history of this country and the world, 
the Declaration of Independence ; a meas- 
ure in which Mr Adams himself had taken 
so distinguished a part. Tlie emotions of 
the public were greatly increased by the 
indications given by Mr. Adams in his last 
liours, that he was fully aware tliat the 
day was the anniversary of Independence, 
and bj' his dying allusion to the supposed 
fact that his colleague, Jefferson, survived 
him. When, in the course of a few days, 
the news arrived from Virginia, that he 
also had departed this life, on the same 
day and a few hours before Mr. Adams, 
the sensibility of the community, as of 
the country at large, was touched beyond 
all example. The occurrence was justly 
deemed without a parallel in history. The 
various circumstances of association and 
coincidence which marked the characters 
and careers of these great men, and espe- 
cially those of their simultaneous decease 
on the 4th of July, were dwelt upon with 
melancholy but untiring interest. The cir- 
cles of private life, the press, public bodies, 
and the pulpit, were for some time almost 
engrossed with the topic ; and solemn rites 
of commemoration were performed through- 
out the country. 

An early day was appointed for this 
purpose by the City Council of Boston. 
Tlie wliole community manifested its sym- 



pathy in the extraordinary event ; and on 
the 2d of August, 1826, at the request of the 
municipal authorities, and in the presence 
of an immense audience, the following Dis- 
course was delivered in Faneuil Hall.] 

This is an unaccustomed spectacle. 
For the first time, fellow-citizens, badges 
of mourning shroud the columns and 
overhang the arches of this hall. These 
walls, which were consecrated, so long 
ago, to the cause of American liberty, 
which witnessed her infant struggles, 
and rung with the shouts of her earliest 
victories, proclaim, now, that distin- 
guished friends and champions of that 
great cause have fallen. It is right that 
it should be thus. The tears which 
flow, and the honors that are paid, when 
the founders of the republic die, give 
hope that the republic itself may be 
immortal. It is fit that, by public as- 
sembly and solemn observance, by an- 
them and by eulogy, we commemorate 
the services of national benefactors, 
extol their virtues, and render thanks 
to God for eminent blessings, early 
given and long continued, through their 
agency, to our favored country. 

ADAMS and JEFFERSON" are no 
more; and we are a.ssembled, fellow- 
citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and 
the young, by the spontaneous impulse 
of all, under the avithority of the mu- 
nicipal government, with the presence of 
the chief magistrate of the Common- 
wealth, and others its official represent- 
atives, the University, and the learned 
societies, to bear our part in those mani- 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



157 



festations of respect and gratitude which 
pervade the whole land. Adams and 
Jeffkuson are no more. On our fifti- 
eth anniversarj-, the great day of national 
jubilee, in the very hour of public re- 
joicing, in the midst of echoing and 
re-echoing voices of thanksgiving, while 
their own names were on all tongues, 
they took their flight together to the 
world of spirits. 

If it be true that no one can safely be 
pronounced happy while he lives, if that 
event which terminates life can alone 
crown its honors and its glory, what 
felicity is here ! The great epic of their 
lives, how happily concluded! Poetry 
itself has hardly terminated illustrious 
lives, and finished the career of earthly 
renown, by such a consummation. If 
we had the power, we could not wish to 
reverse this dispensation of the Divine 
Providence. The great objects of life 
were accomplished, the drama was ready 
to be closed. It has closed; our patriots 
have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, 
with such coincidence, on such a day, 
that w^e cannot rationally lament that 
that end has come, which we knew could 
not be long deferred. 

Neither of these great men, fellow- 
citizens, could have died, at any time, 
without leaving an immense void in our 
American society. They have been so 
intimately, and for so long a time, 
blended with the history of the countiy, 
and especially so united, in our thoughts 
and recollections, with the events of the 
Revolution, that the death of either 
would have touched the chords of public 
sympathy. We should have felt that 
one great link, connecting us with former 
times, was broken; that we had lost 
something more, as it were, of the j)re.s- 
ence of the Revolution itself, and of the 
act of independence, and were driven 
on, by another great remove from the 
days of our country's early distinction, 
to meet posterity, and to mix with the 
future. Like the mariner, whom the 
currents of the ocean and the winds 
carry along, till he sees the stars which 
have directed his course and lighted his 
pathless way descend, one by one, be- 
neath the rising horizon, we should have 



felt that the stream of time had borne 
us onward till anotlier great luminary, 
whose light had cheered us and whose 
guidance we had followed, had sunk 
away from our sight. 

But the concurrence of their death on 
the anniversary of Independence has 
naturally awakened stronger emotions. 
Both had been Presidents, both had 
lived to great age, both were early pa- 
triots, and both were distinguished and 
ever honored by their immediate agency 
in the act of independence. It cannot 
but seem striking and extraordinary, 
that these two should live to see the fif- 
tieth year from the date of that act; 
that they should complete that year; 
and that then, on the day which had 
fast linked for ever their own fame with 
their country's glory, the heavens should 
open to receive them both at once. As 
their lives themselves were the gifts of 
Providence, who is not willing to recog- 
nize in their happy termination, as well 
as in their long continuance, proofs that 
our country and its benefactors are ob- 
jects of His care? 

Adams and Jeffkrson, I have said, 
are no more. As human beings, indeed, 
they are no more. They are no more, as 
in 177G, bold and fearless advocates of 
independence; no more, as at subsequent 
periods, the head of the government; no 
more, as we have recently seen them, 
aged and venerable objects of admira- 
tion and regard. They are no more. 
They are dead. But how little is there 
of the great and good which can die! 
To their country they yet live, and live 
for ever. They live in all tliat perpetu- 
ates the remembrance of men on eaitli; 
in the recorded proofs of their own great 
actions, in the offspring of their intel- 
lect, in the deep-engraved lines of pub- 
lic gratitude, and in the respect and 
homage of mankind. They livt; in their 
example; and tliey live, empliatically, 
and will live, in the influence which 
their lives and efforts, their principles 
and opinions, now exercise, and will 
continue to exercise, on the afl'airs of 
men, not only in their own country, but 
throughout the civili/.<'il world. A su- 
perior and conunanding human intellect, 



158 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



a truly great man, when Heaven vouch- 
safes so rare a gift, is not a temporary 
flame, burning brightly for a while, and 
then giving place to returning darkness. 
It is rather a spark of fervent heat, as 
■well as radiant light, with power to 
enkindle the common mass of human 
mind; so that when it glimmers in its 
own decay, and finally goes out in death, 
no night follows, but it leaves the world 
all light, all on fire, from the potent con- 
tact of its own spirit. Bacon died ; but 
the human understanding, roused by the 
touch of his miraculous wand to a per- 
ception of the true philosophy and the 
just mode of inquiring after truth, has 
kept on its course successfully and glori- 
ously. Newton died; yet the courses of 
the spheres are still known, and they 
yet move on by the laws which he dis- 
covered, and in the orbits which he saw, 
and described for them, in the infinity 
of space. 

No two men now live, fellow-citizens, 
perhaps it may be doubted wliether any 
two men have ever lived in one age, 
who, more than those we now commem- 
orate, have impressed on mankind their 
own sentiments in regard to politics and 
government, infused their own opinions 
more deeply into the opinions of others, 
or given a more lasting direction to the 
current of human thought. Their work 
doth not perish with them. The tree 
which they assisted to plant will flourish, 
although they water it and protect it no 
longer; for it has struck its roots deep, 
it has sent them to the very centre; no 
storm, not of force to burst the orb, can 
overturn it; its branches spread wide; 
they stretch their protecting arms broader 
and broader, and its top is destined to 
reach the heavens. We are not deceived . 
There is no delusion here. No age will 
come in which the Amei'ican Revolution 
will appear less than it is, one of the 
greatest events in human history. No 
age will come in which it shall cease to 
be seen and felt, on either continent, 
that a mighty step, a great advance, not 
only in American affairs, but in human 
affairs, was made on the 4th of July, 
1776. And no age will come, we trust, 
so ignorant or so unjust as not to see and 



acknowledge the efficient agency of those 
we now honor in producing that momen- 
tous event. 

We are not assembled, therefore, fel- 
low-citizens, as men overwhelmed with 
calamity by the sudden disruption of 
the ties of fi-iendship or affection, or as 
in despair for the republic by the un- 
timely blighting of its hopes. Death 
has not surprised us by an unseasonable 
blow. We have, indeed, seen the tomb 
close, but it has closed only over mature 
years, over long-protracted public ser- 
vice, over the weakness of age, and over 
life itself only when the ends of living 
had been fulfilled. These suns, as they 
rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds 
and storms, in their ascendant, so they 
have not rushed from their meridian to 
sink suddenly in the west. Like the 
mildness, the serenity, the continuing 
benignity of a summer's day, they have 
gone down with slow-descending, grate- 
ful, long-lingering light; and now that 
they are beyond the visible margin of 
the world, good omens cheer us from 
"the bright track of their fiery car " ! 

There were many points of similarity 
in the lives and fortunes of these great 
men. They belonged to the same pro- 
fession, and had pursued its studies and 
its practice, for unequal lengths of time 
indeed, but with diligence and effect. 
Both were learned and able lawyers. 
They were natives and inhabitants, re- 
sijectively, of those two of the Colonies 
which at the Revolution were the largest 
and most powerful, and which naturally 
had a lead in the political affairs of the 
times. AVhen the Colonies became in 
some degree united, by the assembling 
of a general Congress, they were brought 
to act together in its deliberations, not 
indeed at the same time, but both at 
early periods. Each had already mani- 
fested his attachment to the cause of the 
country, as well as his ability to main- 
tain it, by printed addresses, public 
speeches, extensive correspondence, and 
whatever other mode could be adopted 
for the purpose of exposing the en- 
croachments of the Bi-itish Parliament, 
and animating the people to a manly 
resistance. Both were not only decided, 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



159 



but early, friends of Independence. 
While others yet doubted, they were 
resolved; where others hesitated, they 
pressed forward. They were both mem- 
bers of the committee for preparing the 
Declaration of Independence, and they 
constituted the sub-committee appointed 
by the other members to make tlie draft. 
They left their seats in Congress, being 
called to other public employments, at 
periods not remote from each other, al- 
though one of them returned to it after- 
wards for a short time. Neither of them 
was of the assembly of great men which 
formed the present Constitution, and 
neither was at any time a member of 
Congress under its provisions. Both 
have been public ministers abroad, both 
Vice-Presidents and both Presidents of 
the United States. These coincidences 
are now singularly crowned and com- 
pleted. They have died together; and 
they died on the anniversary of liberty. 
When many of us were last in this 
place, fellow-citizens, it was on the day 
of that anniversary. We were met to 
enjoy the festivities belonging to the 
occasion, and to manifest our grateful 
homage to our political fathers. We 
did not, we could not here, forget our 
venerable neighbor of Quincy. We 
knew that we were standing, at a time 
of high and palmy prosperity, where he 
had stood in the hour of utmost peril ; 
that we saw nothing but liberty and 
security, where he had met the frown 
of power; that we were enjoying every 
thing, where he had hazarded every 
thing; and just and sincere plaudits rose 
to his name, from the crowds which filled 
this area, and hung over these galleries. 
He whose grateful duty it was to speak 
to us,^ on that day, of the virtues of our 
fathers, had, indeed, admonished us that 
time and years were about to level his 
venerable frame with the dust. But he 
bade us hope that " the sound of a na- 
tion's joy, rushing from our cities, ring- 
ing from our valleys, echoing from our 
hills, might yet break the silence of his 
aged ear; that the rising blessings of 
grateful millions might yet visit with glad 
light his decaying vision." Alas! that 
1 Hon. Josiah Quincy. 



vision was then closing for ever. Alas ! 
the silence which was then settling on 
that aged ear was an everlasting silence! 
For, lo ! in the very moment of our fes- 
tivities, his freed spirit ascended to God 
who gave it! Human aid and human 
solace terminate at the grave; or we 
would gladly have borne him upward, 
on a nation's outspread hands; we would 
have accompanied him, and with the 
blessings of millions and the pi-ayers of 
millions, commended him to the Divine 
favor. 

While still indulging our thoughts, 
on the coincidence of the death of this 
venerable man with the anniversary of 
Independence, we learn that Jefferson, 
too, has fallen; and that these aged 
patriots, these illustrious fellow-laborers, 
have left our world together. May not 
such events raise the suggestion that they 
are not undesigned, and that Heaven does 
so order things, as sometimes to attract 
strongly the attention and excite the 
thoughts of men? The occurrence has 
added new interest to our anniversary, 
and will be remembered in all time to 
come. 

The occasion, fellow-citizens, requires 
some account of the lives and services of 
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. 
This duty must necessarily be pei'formed 
with great brevity, and in the discharge 
of it I shall be obliged to confine myself, 
principally, to those paiis of their his- 
tory and character which belonged to 
them as public men. 

John Adams was born at Quincy, 
then part of the ancient town of Brain- 
tree, on the 19th day of October (old 
style), 1735. He was a descendant of 
the Puritans, his ancestors having early 
emigrated from England, and settled in 
Massachusetts. Discovering in child- 
hood a strong love of reading and of 
knowledge, together with marks of great 
strength and activity of mind, proper 
care was taken by his worthy fathi-r to 
provide for his education. He pursued 
his youthful studies in Braintree, under 
Mr. Marsh, a teacher whose fortune it 
was that Josiah Quincy, Jr., as well as 
the subject of these remarks, should 



160 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



receive from him his instruction in the 
rudiments of classical literature. Hav- 
ing been admitted, in 1751, a member 
of Harvard College, Mr. Adams was 
graduated, in course, in 1755; and on the 
catalogue of that institution, his name, 
at the time of his death, was second 
among the living Alumni, being preced- 
ed only by that of the venerable Holy- 
oke. With what degree of reputation 
he left the University is not now precisely 
known. We know only that he was dis- 
tinguished in a class which numbered 
Locke and Hemmenway among its mem- 
bers. Choosing the law for his profes- 
sion, he commenced and prosecuted its 
studies at Worcester, under the direction 
of Samuel Putnam, a gentleman whom 
he has himself described as an acute 
man, an able and learned lawyer, and 
as being in large professional practice 
at that time. In 1758 he was admitted 
to the bar, and entered upon the practice 
of the law in Braintree. He is under- 
stood to have made his first considerable 
effort, or to have attained his first signal 
success, at Plymouth, on one of those 
occasions which furnish the earliest op- 
portunity for distinction to many young 
men of the profession, a jury trial, and 
a criminal cause. His business natu- 
rally grew with his reputation, and his 
residence in the vicinity afforded the 
opportunity, as his growing eminence 
gave the power, of entering on a larger 
field of practice in the capital. In 1766 
he removed his residence to Boston, still 
continuing his attendance on the neigh- 
boring circuits, and not unfrequently 
called to remote parts of the Province. 
In 1770 his professional firmness was 
brought to a test of some severity, on 
the application of the British officers 
and soldiers to undertake their defence, 
on the trial of the indictments found 
against them on account of the trans- 
actions of the memorable 5th of March. 
He seems to have thought, on this occa- 
sion, that a man can no more abandon 
the proper duties of his profession, than 
he can abandon other duties. The event 
proved, that, as he judged well for his 
own reputation, so, too, he judged well 
for the interest and permanent fame of 



his country. The result of that trial 
proved, that, notwithstanding the high 
degree of excitement then existing in 
consequence of tlie measures of the Brit- 
ish government, a jury of Massachusetts 
would not deprive the most reckless 
enemies, even the officers of that stand- 
ing army quartered among them, which 
they so perfectly abhorred, of any part 
of that protection which the law, in its 
mildest and most indulgent interpreta- 
tion, affords to persons accused of crimes. 
Without following Mr. Adams's pro- 
fessional course further, suffice it to say, 
that on the first establishment of the 
judicial tribunals under the authority of 
the State, in 1776, he received an offer 
of the high and responsible station of 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
Massachusetts. But he was destined 
for another and a different career. 
From early life the bent of his mind 
was toward politics ; a propensity which \ 
the state of the times, if it did not 
create, doubtless very much strength- 
ened. Public subjects must have occu- 
pied the thoughts and filled up the con- 
versation in the circles in which he then 
moved; and the interesting questions at 
that time just arising could not but 
seize on a mind like his, ardent, san- j 
guine, and patriotic. A letter, fortu- 
nately preserved, written by him at 
Worcester, so early as the 12th of Oc- 
tober, 1755, is a proof of very compre- 
hensive views, and uncommon depth of 
reflection, in a young man not yet quite 
twenty. In this letter he predicted the 
transfer of power, and the establishment 
of a new seat of empire in America ; he 
predicted, also, the increase of popula- 
tion in the Colonies; and anticipated 
their naval distinction, and foretold that 
all Europe combined could not subdue 
them. All this is said, not on a public 
occasion or for effect, but in the style of 
sober and friendly correspondence, as 
the result of his own thoughts. " I 
sometimes retire," said he, at the close 
of the letter, "and, laying things to- 
gether, form some reflections pleasing 
to myself. The produce of one of these 
reveries you have read above." This 
prognostication so early in his own life, 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



161 



so early in the history of the country, 
of independence, of vast increase of 
numbers, of naval force, of such aug- 
mented power as might defy all Europe, 
is remarkable. It is more remarkable 
that its author should live to see ful- 
filled to the letter what could have 
seemed to others, at the time, but the 
extravagance of youthful fancy. His 
earliest political feelings were thus 
stronfrlv American, and from this ar- 
dent attachment to his native soil he 
never departed. 

■\\liile still living at Quincy, and at 
the age of twenty-four, Mr. Adams was 
present, in this town, at the argument 
before the Supreme Court respecting 
Writs of Assistance, and heard the cele- 
brated and patriotic speech of Jamks 
Otis. Unquestionably, that was a mas- 
terly performance. No flighty declama- 
tion about liberty, no superficial discus- 
sion of popular topics, it was a learned, 
penetrating, convincing, constitutional 
argument, expressed in a strain of high 
and resolute patriotism. He grasped 
the question then pending between Eng- 
land and her Colonies with the strength 
of a lion; and if he sometimes sported, 
it was only because the lion himself is 
sometimes playful. Its success appears 
to have been as gi-eat as its merits, and its 
impression was widely felt. Mr. Adams 
himself seems never to have lost the 
feeling it produced, and to have enter- 
tained constantly the fullest conviction 
of its important effects. " I do say," 
he observes, " in the most solemn man- 
ner, that Mr. Otis's Oration against 
Writs of Assistance breathed into this 
nation the breath of life." ^ 

In 1765 Mr. Adams laid before the 

1 Nearly all that was known of this cele- 
brated argument, at the time the present Dis- 
course was delivered, was derived from the 
recollections of John Adams, as preserved in 
Minot's History of Massachusetts, Vol. II. p. 
91. See Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. 
II. p. 124, published in the course of the past 
year (18-50), in the Appendix to which, p. 521, 
will be found a paper hitherto unpublished, con- 
taining notes of the argument of Otis, '"which 
seem to be the foundation of the sketch pub- 
lished by Minot." Tudor's Life of James Otis, 
p. 61. 



public, anonymously, a series of essays, 
afterwards collected in a volume in Lon- 
don, under the title of " A Dissertation 
on the Canon and Feudal Law." - Tlie 
object of this work was to show that 
our New England ancestors, in consent- 
insr to exile themselves from their native 
land, were actuated mainly by the desire 
of delivering themselves from the power 
of the hierarchy, and from the monarch- 
ical and aristocratical systems of the 
other continent ; and to make this truth 
bear with effect on the politics of the 
times. Its tone is uncommonly bold 
and animated for that period. He calls 
on the people, not only to defend, but to 
study and understand, their rights and 
privileges; urges earnestly the necessity 
of dift'using general knowledge; invokes 
the clergy and the bar, the colleges and 
academies, and all others who have the 
ability and the means to expose the in- 
sidious designs of arbitrary power, to 
resist its approaches, and to be per- 
suaded that there is a settled design 
on foot to enslave all America, "lie 
it remembered," says the author, "that 
liberty must, at all hazards, be support- 
ed. We have a right to it, derived from 
our Maker. But if we had not, our fa- 
thers have earned and bought it for us, at 
the expense of their easo, their estates, 
their pleasure, and their blood. And 
liberty cannot be preserved without a 
general knowledge among the people, 
who have a right, from the frame of 
their nature, to knowledge, as their 
great Creator, who does nothing in vain, 
has given them understandings and a 
desire to know. But, besides this, they 
have a right, an indisputable unaliena- 
ble, indefeasible, divine right, to tliat 
most dreaded and envied kind of knowl- 
edge, I mean of the characters and con- 
duct of their rulers. Rulers are no more 
than attorneys, agents, and tru.«tees for 
the people; and if the cause, the inter- 
est and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or 
wantonly trifled away, the people have 
a right to revoke the authority that they 
themselves have deputed, and to consti- 

2 See Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. 
II. p. 150, Vol III. p. 447. and North American 
Review, Vol. LXXl. p. 430. 



11 



162 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



tute abler and better agents, attorneys, 
and trustees." 

The citizens of this town conferred 
on Mr. Adams his first political distinc- 
tion, and clothed him with his first po- 
litical trust, by electing him one of their 
representatives, in 1770. Before this 
time he had become extensively known 
throughout the Province, as well by 
the part he had acted in relation to 
public affairs, as by the exercise of his 
professional ability. He was among 
those who took the deepest interest in 
the controversy with England, and, 
whether in or out of the legislature, 
his time and talents were alike devoted 
to the cause. In the years 1773 and 
1774 he was chosen a Councillor by the 
members of the General Court, but re- 
jected by Governor Hutchinson in the 
former of those years, and by Governor 
Gage in the latter. 

The time was now at hand, however, 
when the affairs of the Colonies urgent- 
ly demanded imited counsels throughout 
the country. An open rupture with the 
parent state appeared inevitable, and it 
was but the dictate of prudence that 
those who were united by a common in- 
terest and a common danger should pro- 
tect that interest and guard against that 
danger by united efforts. A general 
Congress of Delegates from all the Colo- 
nies having been proposed and agreed 
to, the House of Representatives, on 
the 17th of June, 1774, elected James 
Bowdoin, Thomas Cushing, Samuel 
Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat 
Paine, delegates from Massachusetts. 
This appointment was made at Salem, 
where the General Court had been con- 
vened by Governor Gage, in the last 
hour of the existence of a House of 
Representatives under the Provincial 
Charter. While engaged in this im- 
portant business, the Governor, having 
been informed of what was passing, sent 
his secretary with a message dissolving 
the General Court. The secretary, find- 
ing the door locked, directed the mes- 
senger to go in and inform the Speaker 
that the secretary was at the door with 
a message from the Governor. The mes- 
senger returned, and informed the sec- 



retary that the orders of the House were 
that the doors should be kept fast-, 
whereupon the secretary soon after read 
upon the stairs a proclamation dissolv- 
ing the General Court. Thus termi- 
nated, for ever, the actual exercise of the 
political power of England in or over 
Massachusetts. The four last-named 
delegates accepted their appointments, 
and took their seats in Congress the 
first day of its meeting, the 5th of Sep- 
tember, 1774, in Philadelphia. 

The proceedings of the first Congress 
are well known, and have been univer- 
sally admired. It is in vain that we 
would look for superior proofs of wis- 
dom, talent, and patriotism . Lord Chat- 
ham said, that, for himself, he must 
declare that he had studied and admired 
the free states of antiquity, the master 
states of the world, but that for solidity 
of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wis- 
dom of conclusion, no body of men could 
stand in preference to this Congress. It 
is hardly inferior praise to say, that no 
production of that great man himself 
can be pronounced superior to several of 
the papers published as the proceedings 
of this most able, most firm, most patri- 
otic assembly. There is, indeed, noth- 
ing superior to them in the range of 
political disquisition. They not only 
embrace, illustrate, and enforce every 
thing which political philosophy, the 
love of liberty, and the spirit of free 
inquiry had antecedently produced, but 
they add new and striking views of 
their own, and apply the whole, with 
irresistible force, in support of the cause 
which had drawn them together. 

Mr. Adams was a constant attendant 
on the deliberations of this body, and 
bore an active part in ' its important 
measures. He was of the committee to 
state the rights of the Colonies, and of 
that also which reported the Addi-ess to 
the King. 

As it was in the Continental Congress, 
fellow-citizens, that those whose deaths 
have given rise to this occasion were first 
brought together, and called upon to 
unite their industry and their ability in 
the service of the country, let us now 
turn to the other of these distinguished 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



163 



men, and take a brief notice of his life 
up to tlie period wlien lie appeared within 
the walls of Congress. 

Thomas Jefferson, descended from 
ancestors who had been settled in Vir- 
ginia for some generations, was born 
near the spot on which he died, in the 
county of Albemarle, on the 2d of Ajjril 
(old style), 1743. His youthful studies 
were pursued in the neigliborhood of his 
fatlier's residence until he was removed 
to the College of William and Maiy, the 
highest honors of which he in due time 
received. Having left the College with 
reputation, he applied himself to the 
study of the law under the tuition of 
George Wythe, one of the highest judi- 
cial names of which that State can boast. 
At an early age he was elected a member 
of the legislature, in which he had no 
sooner ai:)peared than he distinguished 
himself by knowledge, capacity, and 
promptitude. 

Mr. Jefferson appears to have been 
imbued with an early love of letters and 
science, and to have cherished a strong 
disposition to pursue these objects. To 
the physical sciences, especially, and to 
ancient classic literature, he is under- 
stood to have had a warm attachment, 
and never entirely to have lost sight of 
them in the midst of the busiest occu- 
pations. But the times were times for 
action, rather than for contemplation. 
The country was to be defended, and to 
be saved, before it could be enjoyed. 
Philosophic leisure and literary pursuits, 
and even the objects of professional at- 
tention, were all necessarily postponed 
to the urgent calls of the public service. 
The exigency of the countiy made the 
same demand on Mr. Jefferson that it 
made on others who had the ability and 
the disposition to serve it; and he obeyed 
the call; thinking and feeling in this 
respect with the great Roman orator: 
" Quis enim est tam cupidus in perspi- 
cienda cognoscendaque rerum natura, 
ut, si ei tractanti contemplantique res 
cognitione dignissimas subito sit alla- 
tum periculum discrimenqiu' patriae, cui 
subvenire opitularique possit, non ilia 
omnia relinquat atque abjiciat, etiam si 



dinumerare se Stellas, ant metiri mundi 
magnitudinem posse arbitreturV " ' 

Entering with all his heart into the 
cause of liberty, his ability, patriotism, 
and power with the pen naturally drew 
upon him a large participation in the 
most important concerns. Wherever he 
was, there was found a soul devoted to 
the cause, power to defend and maintain 
it, and willingness to incur all its haz- 
ards. In 177-4 he published a " Summary 
View of the Rights of British America," 
a valuable production among those in- 
tended to show the danj:fers wliicli threat- 
ened the liberties of the country, and to 
encourage the people in their defence. 
In June, 1775, he was elected a member 
of the Continental Congress, as succes- 
sor to Peyton Randolph, who had re- 
signed his place on account of ill health, 
and took his seat in that body on the 
21st of the same month. 

And now, fellow-citizens, without pur- 
suing the biography of these illustrious 
men further, for the present, let us turn 
our attention to the most prominent act 
of their lives, their participation in the 
Dkclaratiox of Indepexdexce. 

Preparatory to the introduction of that 
important measure, a committee, at the 
head of which was Mr. Adams, had 
reported a resolution, which Congress 
adopted on the 10th of Alay, recom- 
mending, in substance, to all the Colo- 
nies which had not already established 
governments suited to the exigencies of 
their affairs, to adopt such gocernment as 
would, in the opinion of the representatives 
of the people, best conduce to the happi- 
ness and safety of their constituents in par- 
ticular, and Atnerica in general. 

This significant vote was soon fol- 
lowed by the direct proposition which 
Richard Henry Lee had the honor to 
submit to Congress, by resolution, on 
the 7th day of June. The published 
journal does not expressly state it. but 
there is no doubt, I suppose, that thi.s 
resolution was in the same words, when 
originally submitted by Mr. Lee, aa 
when finally passed. Having been dis- 
cussed on Saturday, the 8th, and Mon- 
day, the 10th of June, this resolution 
1 Cicero de Ofliciis, Lib. I. § 43. 



164 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



/ 



was on the last-mentioned day postponed 
for further consideration to the first day 
of July; and at the same time it was 
voted, that a committee be appointed to 
prepare a Declaration to the effect of the 
resolution. This committee was elected 
by ballot, on the following day, and con- 
sisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, 
Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and 
Robert R. Livingston. 

It is usual, when committees are 
elected by ballot, that their members 
should be arranged in order, according 
to the number of votes which each has 
received. Mr. Jefferson, thei-efore, had 
received the highest, and Mr. Adams 
the next highest number of votes. The 
dift'erence is said to have been but of 
a single vote. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
Adams, standing thus at the head of the 
committee, were requested by the other 
members to act as a subcommittee to 
prepare the draft; and Mr. Jefferson 
drew up the paper. The original draft, 
as brought by him from his study, and 
submitted to the other members of the 
committee, with interlineations in the 
handwriting of Dr. Franklin, and others 
in that of Mr. Adams, was in Mr. Jeffer- 
son's possession at the time of his death. ^ 
The merit of this paper is Mr. Jeffer- 
son's. Some changes were made in it at 
the suggestion of other members of the 
committee, and others by Congress while 
it was under discussion. But none of 
them altered the tone, the frame, the ar- 
rangement, or the general character of 
the instrument. As a composition, the 
Declaration is Mr. Jefferson's. It is the 
production of his mind, and the high 
honor of it belongs to him, clearly and 
absolutely. 

■ It has sometimes been said, as if it 
were a derogation from the merits of tliis 
paper, that it contains nothing new; 
tiiat it only states grounds of proceed- 
ing, and presses topics of argument, 

1 A fac-simile of this ever-memorable state 
paper, as dratted by Mr. Jefferson, with the in- 
terlineations alluded to in the text, is contained 
in Mr. Jefferson's Writings, Vol. I. p. 146. See, 
also, in reference to the history of the Declara- 
tion, the Life and Works of John Adams, 
Vol. II. p. 512 et seq. 



which had often been stated and pressed 
before. But it was not the object of the 
Declaration to produce any thing new. 
It was not to invent reasons for inde- 
pendence, but to state those which gov- 
erned the Congress. For great and 
sufficient causes, it was proposed to 
declare independence; and the proper 
business of the paper to be drawn was 
to set forth those causes, and justify the 
authors of the measure, in any event of 
fortune, to the country and to posterity. 
The cause of American independence, 
moreover, was now to be presented to 
the world in such manner, if it might so 
be, as to engage its sympathy, to com- 
mand its respect, to attract its admira- 
tion ; and in an assembly of most able 
and distinguished men, Thomas Jef- 
ferson had the higli honor of being the 
selected advocate of this cause. To say 
that he performed his great work well, 
would be doing him injustice. To say 
that he did excellently well, admirably 
well, would be inadequate and halting 
praise. Let us rather say, that he so 
discharged the duty assigned him, that 
all Americans may well rejoice that the 
work of drawing the title-deed of their 
liberties devolved upon him. 

With all its merits, there are those 
who have thought that there was one 
thing in the Declaration to be regretted ; 
and that is, the asperity and apparent 
anger with which it speaks of the person 
of the king ; the industrious ability with 
which it accumulates and charges ujion 
him all the injuries which the Colonies 
had suffered from the mother country. 
Possibly some degree of injustice, now 
or hereafter, at home or abroad, may be 
done to the character of Mr. Jefferson, 
if this part of the Declaration be not 
placed in its proper liglit. Anger or re- 
sentment, certainly miich less personal 
reproach and invective, could not prop- 
erly find place in a composition of such 
high dignity, and of such lofty and per- 
manent character. 

A single reflection on the original 
ground of dispute between England and 
the Colonies is sufficient to remove any 
unfavorable impression in this respect. 

The inhabitants of all the Colonies, 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



165 



while Colonies, admitted themselves 
bound by their allegiance to the king; 
but they disclaimed altogether the au- 
thority of Parliament; holding them- 
selves, in this respect, to resemble the 
condition of Scotland and Ireland before 
the respective unions of those kingdoms 
with England, when they acknowledged 
allegiance to the same king, but had 
each its separate legislature. The tie, 
therefore, which our Revolution was to 
break did not subsist between us and 
the British Parliament, or between us 
and the British government in the ag- 
gregate, but directly between us and the 
king himself. The Colonies had never' 
admitted themselves subject to Parlia- 
ment. That was precisely the point of 
the original controversy. They had uni- 
formly denied that Parliament had au- 
thority to make laws for them. There 
was, therefore, no subjection to Parlia- 
ment to be thrown off.^ But allegiance 
to the king did exist, and had been 
uniformly acknowledged; and down to 
1775 the most solemn assui'ances had 
been given that it was not intended to 
break that allegiance, or to throw it off. 
Therefore, as the direct object and only 
effect of the Declaration, according to 
the principles on which the controversy 
had been maintained on our part, were 
to sever the tie of allegiance which 
bound us to the king, it was properly 
and uecessai'ily founded on acts of the 

1 This question, of the power of Parliament 
over the Colonies, was discussed, with singular 
ability, by Governor Hutchinson on the one side, 
and the House of Kepresentatives of Massachu- 
setts on the other, in 1773. The argument of the 
House is in the form of an answer to the Gov- 
ernor's Message, and was reported by Mr. Sam- 
uel Adams, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Hawley, Mr. 
Bowers, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Foster, Mr. Phillips, 
and Mr. Thayer. As the power of the Parlia- 
ment had been acknowledged, so far at least as 
to affect us by laws of trade, it was not easy to 
settle the line of distinction. It was thought, 
however, to be very clear, that the charters of 
the Colonies had exempted them from the gen- 
eral legislation of the British Parliament. See 
Massachusetts State Papers, p. 351. The impor- 
tant assistance rendered by John Adams iu the 
preparation of the answer of the House to the 
Message of the Governor may be learned from 
the Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. H. 
p. 311 et seq. 



crown itself, as its justifying causes. 
I'arliament is not so much as mentioned 
in the whole instrument. When odious 
and oppressive acts are referred to, it i.s 
done by charging the king with confed- 
erating with others "in pretended acts 
of legislation"; the object being con- 
stantly to hold the king himself directly 
responsible for those measures whicli 
were the grounds of separation. Even 
the precedent of the English Revolution 
was not overlooked, and in this case, aa 
well as in that, occasion was found to 
say that tjie king had abdicated the gov- 
ernment. \ Consistency with the princi- 
ples upon which resistance began, and 
with all the previous state papers issued 
by Congress, required that the Declara- 
tion should be bottomed on the misgov- 
ernment of the king; and tVierefore it 
was properly framed with that aim and 
to that end. The king was known, in- 
deed, to have acted, as in other cases, by 
his ministers, and with his Parliament; 
but as our ancestors had never admitted 
themselves subject either to ministers or 
to Parliament, there were no reasons to 
be given for now refusing obedience to 
their authority. This clear and obvious 
necessity of founding the Declaration on 
the misconduct of the king himself, gives 
to that instrument its personal applica- 
tion, and its character of direct and 
pointed accusation. 

The Declaration having been reported 
to Congress by the committee, the reso- 
lution itself was taken up and debated 
on the first day of July, and again on the 
second, on which last day it was agreed 
to and adopted, in these words: — 

" Resolved, That these united Colonies 
are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent States; that they are ab- 
solved from all allegiance to the British 
crown, and that all political connection 
between them and the state of Great 
Britain is, and ought to be, totally dis- 
solved." 

Having thus passed the main resolu- 
tion, Congress proceeded to consider the 
reported draught of the Declaration. It 
was di.scussed on the second, and third, 
and Forurii days of the month, in com- 
mittee of the whole; and on the last of 



166 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



/ 



those days, being reported from that 
committee, it received tlie final approba- 
tion and sanction of Congress. It was 
ordered, at the same time, that copies be 
sent to the several States, and that it be 
proclaimed at the head of the army. The 
Declaration thus published did not bear 
the names of the members, for as yet it 
had not been signed by them. It was 
authenticated, like other papers of the 
Congress, by the signatures of the Pres- 
ident and Secretary. On the 19th of 
July, as appears by the secret journal, 
Congress "■Resolved, That the Declara- 
tion, passed on the fourth, be fairly en- 
grossed on parchment, with the title and 
style of ' The unanimous Declara- 
tion OF THE Thirteen United States 
OF America ' ; and that the same, when 
engrossed, be signed by every member of 
Congress." And on the second day 
OF August following, "the Declara- 
tion, being engrossed and compared at 
the table, was signed by the members." 
So that it happens, fellow-citizens, that 
we pay these honors to their memory on 
the anniversary of that day (2d of Au- 
gust) on which these great men actually 
signed their names to the Declaration. 

• The Declaration was thus made, that is, 
it passed and was adopted as an act of 
Congress, on the fourth of July; it was 
then signed, and certified by the Presi- 
dent and Secretary, like other acts. The 
Fourth of July, therefore, is the an- 
niversary OF THE Declaration. But 
the signatures of the members present 
were made to it, being then engrossed 
on parchment, on the second day of 
August. Absent members afterwards 
signed, as they came in; and indeed it 
bears the names of some who were not 
chosen members of Congress until after 

. the fourth of July. The interest be- 
longing to the subjecft will be sufficient, 
/■I hope, to justify these details.^ 

/ The Congress of the Revolution, fel- 

; low-citizens, sat with closed doors, and 

\ no report of its debates was ever made. 

The discussion, therefore, which accom- 

1 The official copy of the Declaration, as en- 
grossed and signed by the members of Congress, 
is framed and preserved in the Hall over the 
Patent-Office at Washington. 



panied this gi'eat measure, has never 
been preserved, except in memory and 
by tradition. But it is, I believe, doing 
no injustice to others to say, that the 
general opinion was, and uniformly has 
been, that in debate, on the side of in- 
dependence, John Adams had no equal. 
The great author of the Declaration him- 
self has expressed that opinion uniform- 
ly and strongly. " John Adams," said 
he, in the hearing of him who has now 
the honor to address you, "John Adams 
was om- colossus on the floor. Not grace- 
ful, not elegant, not always fluent, in 
his public addresses, he yet came out 
with a power, both of thought and of 
expression, which moved us from our 
seats." 

For the part which he was here to 
perform, Mr. Adams doubtless was emi- 
nently fitted. He possessed a bold spirit, 
which disregarded danger, and a san- 
guine reliance on the goodness of the 
cause, and the virtues of the people, 
which led him to overlook all obstacles. 
His character, too, had been formed in 
troubled times. He had been rocked in 
the early storms of the controversy, and 
had acquired a decision and a hardihood j 
proportioned to the severity of the disci- 
pline which he had undergone. 

He not only loved the American cause 
devoutly, but had studied and under- 
stood it. It was all familiar to him. 
He had tried his powers on the ques- 
tions which it involved, often and in 
various ways; and had brought to their 
consideration whatever of argument or 
illustration the history of his own coun- 
try, the history of England, or the stores 
of ancient or of legal learning, could fur- 
nish. Every grievance enrmierated in 
the long catalogue of the Declaration 
had been the subject of his discussion, 
and the object of his remonstrance and 
reprobation. From 1760, the Colonies, ] 
the rights of the Colonies, the liberties 
of the Colonies, and the wrongs inflicted 
on the Colonies, had engaged his con- 
stant attention; and it has surprised 
those who have had the opportunity of 
witnessing it, with what full remem- 
brance and with what prompt recollec- 
tion he could refer, in his extreme old 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



167 



age, to every act of Parliament affecting 
the Colonies, distinguishing and stating 
their respective titles, sections, and pro- 
visions; and to all the Colonial memo- 
rials, remonstrances, and petitions, with 
whatever else belonged to the intimate 
and exact history of the times from that 
year to 1775. It was, in his own judg- 
ment, between these years that the 
American people came to a full under- 
standing and thorough knowledge of 
their rights, and to a fixed resolution of 
maintaining them ; and bearing himself 
an active part in all important transac- 
tions, the controversy with England be- 
ing then in effect the busine.ss of his 
life, facts, dates, and particulars made 
an impression which was never effaced. 
He was prepared, therefore, by educa- 
tion and discipline, as well as by natural 
talent and natural temperament, for the 
part which he was now to act. 

The eloquence of IVIr. Adams resem- 
bled his general character, and formed, 
indeed, a part of it. It was bold, manly, 
and energetic; and such the crisis re- 
quired. When public bodies are to be 
addressed on momentous occasions, 
when great interests are at stake, and 
strong passions excited, nothing is 
valuable in speech farther than as it is 
connected with high intellectual and 
moral endowments. Clearness, force, 
and earnestness are the qualities which 
produce conviction. v^True eloquence, 
indeed, does not consist in speech. It 
cannot be brought from far. Labor 
and learning may toil for it, but they 
will toil in vain. Words and phrases 
may be marshalled in every way, but 
they cannot compass it. It must exist 
in the man, in the subject, and in the 
occasion. Affected passion, intense ex- 
pression, the pomp of declamation, all 
may aspire to it ; they cannot reach it. 
It comes, if it come at all, like the out- 
breaking of a fountain from the earth, 
or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, 
with spontaneous, original, native force. 
The graces taught in the schools, the 
costly ornaments and studied contriv- 
ances of speech, shock and disgust men, 
when their own lives, and the fate of 
their wives, their childi-en, and their 



country, hang on the decision of the 
hour. Then words have lost their 
power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate 
oratory contemptible. Even genius it- 
seK then feels robuked and subdued, 
as in the presence of higher qualities. 
Then patriotism is eloquent; then self- 
devotion is eloquent. The clear con- 
ception, outrunning the deductions of 
logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, 
the dauntless spirit, speaking on the 
tongue, beaming from the eye, inform- 
ing every feature, and urging the whole 
man onward, right onward to his ob- 
ject, — this, this is eloquence ; or rather, 
it is something greater and higher than 
all eloquence, — it is action, uoblo, sub- 
lime, godlike action. 

In July, 1776, the controversy had 
passed the stage of argument. An 
appeal had been made to force, and 
opposing armies were in the field. 
Congress, then, was to decide whether 
the tie which had so long bound us to 
the parent state was to be severed at 
once, and severed for ever. All the 
Colonies had signified their resolution 
to abide by this decision, and the people 
looked for it with the most intense 
anxiety. And surely, fellow-citizens, 
never, never were men called to a more 
important political deliberation. If we 
contemplate it from the point where 
they then stood, no question could be 
more full of interest; if we look at it 
now, and judge of its importance by its 
effects, it appears of still greater mag- 
nitude. 

Let us, then, bring before us the 
assembly, w^hich was about to decide 
a question thus big with the fate of 
empire. Let us open their dooi-s and 
look in upon their deliberations. Let 
us survey the anxious and careworn 
countenances, let us hear the firm-toned 
voices, of this band of patriots. 

IIanxock presides over the solemn 
sitting; and one of those not yet pre- 
pared to pronounce for absolute inde- 
pendence is on the fioor, and is urging 
his reasons for dissenting from the 
Declaration. 

"Let us pause! This step, once 
taken, cannot be retraced. This roso- 



168 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



lution, once passed, "will cut off all hope 
of reconciliation. If success attend the 
arms of England, we shall then be no 
longer Colonies, with charters and with 
privileges ; these will all be forfeited by 
this act; and we shall be in the condi- 
tion of other conquered people, at the 
mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves, 
we may be ready to run the hazard ; but 
are we ready to carry the country to 
that length? Is success so probable as 
to justify it? Where is the military, 
where the naval power, by which we are 
to resist the whole strength of the arm 
of England, — for she wiU exert that 
strength to the utmost? Can we rely 
on the constancy and perseverance of 
the people? or will they not act as the 
people of other countries have acted, 
and, wearied with a long war, submit, 
in the end, to a worse oppression? 
While we stand on our old ground, and 
insist on redress of grievances, we know 
we are right, and are not answerable 
for consequences. Nothing, then, can 
be imputed to us. But if we now 
change our object, carry our pretensions 
farther, and set up for absolute inde- 
pendence, we shall lose the sympathy 
of mankind. We shall no longer be 
defending what we possess, but strug- 
gling for something which we never did 
possess, and which we have solemnly 
and uniformly disclaimed all intention 
of pursuing, from the very outset of the 
troubles. Abandoning thus our old 
ground, of resistance only to arbitrary 
acts of oppression, the nations will be- 
lieve the whole to have been mere pre- 
tence, and they will look on us, not as 
injured, but as ambitious subjects. I 
shudder before this responsibility. It 
will be on us, if, relinquishing the 
ground on which we have stood so long, 
and stood so safely, we now proclaim 
independence, and carry on the war for 
that object, while these cities burn, 
these pleasant fields whiten and bleach 
with the bones of their owners, and 
these streams run blood. It will be 
upon us, it will be upon us, if, failing 
to maintain this unseasonable and ill- 
judged declaration, a sterner despotism, 
maintained by military power, shall be 



established over our posterity, when we 
ourselves, given up by an exhausted, a 
harassed, a misled people, shall have 
expiated our rashness and atoned for 
our presumption on the scaffold." 

It was for Mr. Adams to reply to 
arguments like these. We know his 
opinions, and we know his character. 
He would commence with his accus- 
tomed directness and earnestness. 

"Sink or swim, live or die, survive 
or perish, I give my hand and my heart 
to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in 
the beginning we aimed not at indepen- 
dence. But there's a Divinity which 
shapes our ends. The injustice of Eng- 
land has driven us to arms; and, blinded 
to her own interest for our good, she 
has obstinately persisted, till indepen- 
dence is now within our grasp. We 
have but to reach forth to it, and it is 
ours. Why, then, should we defer the 
Declaration? Is any man so weak as 
now to hope for a reconciliation with 
England, which shall leave either safety 
to the country and its liberties, or safety 
to his own life and his own honor? Are 
not you, Sir, who sit in that chair, — is 
not he, our venerable colleague near 
you, — are you not both already the pro- 
scribed and predestined objects of pun- 
ishment and of vengeance ? Cut off from 
all hope of royal clemency, what are you, 
what can you be, while the power of Eng- 
land remains, but outlaws? If we post- 
pone independence , do we mean to carry 
on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean 
to submit to the measures of Parliament, 
Boston Port Bill and all? Do we mean 
to submit, and consent that we our- 
selves shall be gi-ound to powder, and 
our country and its rights trodden down 
in the dust? I know we do not mean 
to submit. We never shall submit. 
Do we intend to violate that most 
solemn obligation ever entered into by 
men, that plighting, before God, of our 
sacred honor to Washington, when, put- 
ting him forth to incur the dangers of 
war, as well as the political hazards of 
the times, we promised to adhere to him, 
in every extremity, with our fortunes 
and our lives? I know there is not a 
man here, who would not rather see 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



169 



a general conflagi-ation sweep over the 
land, or an earthquake sink it, than one 
jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to 
the ground. For myself, having, twelve 
months ago, in this place, moved you, 
that George Washington be appointed 
commander of the forces raised, or to be 
raised, for defence of American liberty,^ 
may my right hand forget her cunning, 
and my tongue cleave to the roof of my 
mouth, if I hesitate or waver in the 
support I give him. 

" The war, then, must go on. We 
must fight it tlirough. And if the war 
must go on, why put off longer the Dec- 
laration of Independence? That meas- 
lu-e will strengthen us. It will give us 
character abroad. The nations wiU 
then treat with ns, which they never 
can do while we acknowledge ourselves 
subjects, in arms against our sovereign. 
Nay, I maintam that England herself 
will sooner treat for peace with us on 
the footing of independence, than con- 
sent, by repealing her acts, to acknowl- 
edge that her whole conduct towards us 
has been a course of injustice and op- 
pression. Her pride will be less wound- 
ed by submitting to that com'se of 
things which now predestinates our in- 
dependence, than by yielding the points 
in controversy to her rebellious subjects. 
The former she would regard as the re- 
sult of fortune; the latter she would 
feel as her own deep disgrace. Why, 
then, why then. Sir, do we not as soon 
as possible change this from a civil to 
a national war? And since we must 
fight it through, why not put ourselves 
in a state to enjoy all the benefits of 
victory, if we gain the victory? 

" If we fail, it can be no worse for us. 
But we shall not fail. The cause wiU 
raise up armies; the cause will create 
navies. The peojile, the people, if we 
are true to them, will carry us, and will 
carry themselves, gloriously, through 
this struggle. I care not how fickle 
other people have been found. I know 
the people of these Colonies, and I 
know that resistance to British asrcres- 
sion is deep and settled in their hearts 

1 See Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. 
II. p. 417 et seq. 



and cannot be eradicated. Every Col- 
ony, indeed, has expressed its willing- 
ness to follow, if we but take the lead. 
Sir, the Declaration will inspire the 
people with increased courage. Instead 
of a long and bloody war for the resto- 
ration of privileges, for redress of griev- 
ances, for chartered immunities, held 
under a British king, set before them 
the glorious object of entire indepen- 
dence, and it will breathe into them 
anew the breath of life. Read this 
Declaration at the head of the army; 
every sword will be drawn from its 
scabbard, and the solemn vow uttered, 
to maintain it, or to perish on the bed 
of honor. Publish it from the pulpit; 
religion wiU approve it, and the love of 
religious liberty will cling round it, re- 
solved to stand with it, or fall with it. 
Send it to the public halls; proclaim it 
there; let them hear it who heard the 
first roar of the enemy's cannon; let 
them see it who saw their brothers and 
their sons fall on the field of Bunker 
Hill, and in the streets of Lexington 
and Concord, and the veiy walls will 
cry out in its support. 

"Sir, I know the uncertainty of 
human affairs, but I see, I see clearly, 
thi-ough this day's business. You and 
I, indeed, may rue it. We may not 
live to the time when this Declaration 
shall be made good. We may die ; die 
colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ig- 
nominiously and on the scaffold. Be it 
so. Be it so. If it be the pleasure of 
Heaven that my country shall require 
the poor offering of my life, the victim 
shall be ready, at the appointed hour of 
sacrifice, come when that hour may. 
But while I do live, let me have a 
country, or at least the hope of a coun- 
tiy, and that a free country. 

" But whatever may be our fate, be 
assured, be assured that this Declara- 
tion will stand. It may cost treasure, 
and it may cost blood; but it will stiind, 
and it will richly compensate for both. 
Through the thick gloom of the present, 
I see the brightness of the future, as 
the sun in heaven. We shall make this 
a glorious, an immortal day. When 
we are in our graves, our children will 



170 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



honor it. They will celebrate it with 
thanksgiving, with festivity, with bon- 
fires, and illuminations. On its annual 
return they will shed tears, copious, 
gushing tears, not of subjection and 
slavery, not of agony and distress, but 
of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. 
Sii-, before God, I believe the hour is 
come. My judgment approves this 
measure, and my whole heart is in it. 
All that I have, and all that I am, and 
all that I hope, in this life, I am now 
ready here to stake upon it ; and I leave 
off as I begun, that live or die, survive 
or perish, I am for the Declaration. It 
is my living sentunent, and by the bless- 
ing of God it shall be my dying senti- 
ment. Independence now, and Ixdepen- 

DENCE FOR EVER."^ 

And so that day shall be honored, 
illustrious prophet and patriot! so that 
day shall be honored, and as often as it 
returns, thy renown shall come along 
with it, and the glory of thy life, like 
the day of thy death, shall not fail from 
the remembrance of men. 

It would be unjust, feUow-citizens, 
on this occasion, while we express our 
veneration for him who is the imme- 
diate subject of these remarks, were we 
to omit a most respectful, affectionate, 
and grateful mention of those other 
great men, his colleagues, who stood 
with him, and with the same spirit, 
the same devotion, took part in the in- 
teresting transaction. Hancock, the 
proscribed Hancock, exiled from his 
home by a military governor, cut off by 
proclamation from the mercy of the 
crown, — Heaven reserved for him the 
distinguished honor of putting this 
great question to the vote, and of writ- 
ing his own name first, and most con- 
spicuously, on that parchment which 
spoke defiance to the power of the 
crown of England. There, too, is the 
name of that other proscribed patriot, 
Samuel Adams, a man who hmigered 
and thirsted for the independence of his 
country, who thought the Declaration 
halted and lingered, being himself not 

1 On the authorship of thi.s speech, see Note 
at the end of the Discourse. 



only ready, but eager, for it, long before 
it was proposed; a man of the deepest 
sagacity, the clearest foresight, and the 
profoundest judgment in men. And 
there is Gerry, himself among the ear- 
liest and the foremost of the patriots, 
found, when the battle of Lexington 
sunnnoned them to common counsels, 
by the side of Warren; a man who 
lived to serve his country at home and 
abroad, and to die in the second place 
in the government. There, too, is the 
inflexible, the upright, the Spartan 
character, Robert Treat Paine. He 
also lived to serve his country through 
the struggle, and then withdrew from 
her councils, only that he might give his 
labors and his life to his native State, 
in another relation. These names, 
fellow-citizens, are the treasures of the 
Commonwealth ; and they are treasures 
which grow brighter by time. 

It is now necessary to resume the nar- 
rative, and to finish with great brevity 
the notice of the lives of those whose 
virtues and services we have met to 
commemorate. 

Mr. Adams remained in Congress 
from its first meeting till November, 
1777, when he was appointed Minister 
to France. He proceeded on that ser- 
vice in the February following, em- 
barking in the frigate Boston, from the 
shore of his native town, at the foot of 
Mount WoUaston. The year following, 
he was appointed commissioner to treat 
of peace with England. Eetm'ning to 
the United States, he was a dele- 
a'ate from Braintree in the Convention 
for framing the Constitution of this 
Commonwealth, in 1780. ^ At the latter 
end of the same year, he again went 
abroad in the diplomatic service of the 
country, and was employed at various 
courts, and occupied with various ne- 
gotiations, until 1788. The particu- 
lars of these interesting and important 
services this occasion does not allow 
time to relate. In 1782 he concluded 
om- first treaty with Holland. His ne- 

2 In this Convention he served as chairman 
of the committee for preparing the draft of a 
Constitution. 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



171 



gotiations with that republic, his efforts 
to persuade the States-General to recog- 
nize our independence, his incessant 
and indefatigable exertions to represent 
the American cause favorably on the 
Continent, and to counteract the designs 
of its enemies, open and secret, and his 
successful undertaking to obtain loans 
on the credit of a nation yet new and 
unknown, are among his most arduous, 
most useful, most honorable services. 
It was his fortune to bear a part in the 
negotiation for peace with England, 
and in something more than six years 
from the Declaration which he had so 
strenuously supported, he had the satis- 
faction of seeing the minister plenipo- 
tentiary of the crown subscribe his 
name to the instrument which declared 
that his "Britannic Majesty acknowl- 
edged the United States to be free, 
sovereign, and independent." In these 
important transactions, Mr. Adams's 
conduct received the marked approba- 
tion of Congress and of the country. 

"\Miile abroad, in 1787, he published 
his " Defence of the American Constitu- 
tions"; a work of merit and ability, 
though composed with haste, on the 
spur of a particular occasion, in the 
midst of other occupations, and under 
circumstances not admitting of careful 
revision. The immediate object of the 
work was to counteract the weight of 
opinions advanced by several popular 
European writers of that day, M. Tur- 
got, the Abbe de Mably, and Dr. Price, 
at a time when the people of the United 
States were employed in forming and 
revising their systems of government. 

Returning to the United States in 
1788, he found the new government 
about going into operation, and was 
himself elected the first Vice-President, 
a situation which he filled with reputa- 
tion for eight years, at the expiration of 
which he was raised to the Presidential 
chair, as immediate successor to the im- 
mortal Washington. In this high sta- 
tion he was succeeded by Mr. Jefferson, 
after a memorable controversy between 
their respective friends, in 1801; and 
from that period his manner of life has 
been known to all who hear me. He 



has lived, for five-and-twenty years, 
with every enjoyment that could render 
old age happy. Not inattentive to the 
occurrences of the times, political cares 
have yet not materially, or for any long 
time, disturbed his repose. In 1820 he 
acted as Elector of President and Vice- 
President, and in the same year we saw 
him, then at the age of eighty-five, a 
member of the Convention of this 
Commonwealth called to revise the 
Constitution. Forty years before, he 
had been one of those who formed that 
Constitution; and he had now the pleas- 
ure of witnessing that there was little 
which the people desired to change.^ 
Possessing all his faculties to the end of 
his long life, with an unabated love 
of reading and contemplation, in the 
centre of interesting circles of friend- 
ship and affection, he was blessed in his 
retirement with whatever of repose and 
felicity the condition of man allows. 
He had, also, other enjojmients. He 
saw around him that prosperity and 
general happiness which had been the 
object of his public cares and labors. 
Xo man ever beheld more clearly, and 
for a longer time, the great and benefi- 
cial effects of the services rendered by 
himself to his country. That liberty 
which he so early defended, that inde- 
pendence of which he was so able an 
advocate and supporter, he saw, we 
trust, firmly and securely established. 
The population of the country thick- 
ened around him faster, and extended 
wider, than his own sanguine predic- 
tions had anticipated; and the wealth, 
respectability, and power of the nation 
sprang up to a magnitude which it is 
quite impossible he coulil have expected 
to witness in his day. He lived also to 
behold those princijiles of civil freedom 
which had been developed, estahlislied, 

1 Upon tlie orpanizatinn of this body, ITith 
November, 1820, John Adnins was elected its 
President: an olTiee whirh the inlirniities of affo 
compelled him to decline. For the inliTestim; 
proceedinffs of the Convention on this oc<-asion, 
the address of Chief Justice Talker, and the re- 
ply of Mr. Adams, see Journal of Debates and 
Proceedings in the Convention of Dclepates 
chosen to revise the Constitution of Massachu- 
setts, p. 8 tt seq. 



172 



ADAMS AND JEFFEESON. 



and practically applied in America, at- 
tract attention, command respect, and 
awaken imitation, in other regions of the 
globe; and well might, and well did, he 
exclaim, " Where will the consequences 
of the American Revolution end? " 

If any thing yet remain to fill this cup 
of happiness, let it be added, that he 
lived to see a great and intelligent peo- 
ple bestow the highest honor in their 
gift where he had bestowed his own 
kindest parental affections and lodged 
his fondest hopes. Thus honored in 
life, thus happy at death, he saw the 
JUBILEE, and he died; and with the last 
prayers which trembled on his lips was 
the fervent supplication for his country, 
' ' Independence for ever ! " ^ 

'Mr. Jefferson, having been occupied 
in the years 1778 and 1779 in the impor- 
tant service of revising the laws of Vir- 
ginia, was elected Governor of that 
State, as successor to Patrick Henry, 
and held the situation when the State 
was invaded by the British arms. In 
1781 he published his Notes on Virginia, 
a work which attracted attention in 
Europe as well as America, dispelled 
many misconceptions respecting this 
continent, and gave its author a place 
among men distinguished for science. 
In November, 1783, he again took his 
seat in the Continental Congress, but in 
the May following was appointed Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary, to act abroad, in the 
negotiation of commercial treaties, with 
Dr. Franklin and Mi-. Adarms. He pro- 
ceeded to France, in execution of this 
mission, embarking at Boston; and that 
was the only occasion on which he ever 
visited this place. In 1785 he was ap- 
pointed Minister to France, the duties 
of which situation he continued to per- 
form until October, 1789, when he ob- 
tained leave to retire, just on the eve of 
that tremendous revolution which has so 
much agitated the world in our times. 
Mr. Jefferson's discharge of his diplo- 
matic duties was marked by great ability, 
diligence, and patriotism; and while he 

1 For an account of Mr. Webster's last inter- 
view with Mr. Adams, see March's Reminis- 
cences of Congress, p. 62. 



resided at Paris, in one of the most in- 
teresting periods, his character for intel- 
ligence, his love of knowledge and of 
the society of learned men, distinguished 
him in the highest circles of the French 
capital. No court in Europe had at 
that time in Paris a representative com- 
manding or enjoying higher regard, for 
political knowledge or for general at- 
tainments, than the minister of this 
then infant republic. Immediately on 
his return to his native country, at the 
organization of the government under 
the present Constitution, his talents and 
experience recommended him to Presi- 
dent Washington for the first office in 
his gift. He was placed at the head of 
the Department of State. In this situ- 
ation, also, he manifested conspicuous 
ability. His correspondence with the 
ministers of other powers residing here, 
and his instructions to our own dij^lo- 
matic agents abroad, are among our 
ablest state papers. A thorough knowl- 
edge of the laws and usages of nations, 
perfect acquaintance with the immediate 
subject before him, great felicity, and 
still greater facility, in writing, show 
themselves in whatever effort his official 
situation called on him to make. It is 
believed by competent judges, that the 
diplomatic intercourse of the govern- 
ment of the United States, from the first 
meeting of the Continental Congress in 
1774 to the present time, taken together, 
would not suffer, in respect .to the talent 
with which it has been conducted, by 
comparison with any thing which other 
and older governments can produce ; and 
to the attainment of this respectability 
and distinction Mr. Jefferson has con- 
tributed his full part. 

On the retirement of General Wash- 
ington from the Presidency, and the 
election of Mr. Adams to that office in 
1797, he was chosen Vice-President. 
While presiding in this capacity over 
the deliberations of the Senate, he com- 
piled and published a Manual of Parlia- 
mentary Practice, a work of more labor 
and more merit than is indicated by its 
size. It is now received as the general 
standard by which proceedings are reg- 
ulated, not only in both Houses of Con- 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



173 



I gress, but in most of the other legislative 

I bodies in the country. In 1801 he was 

elected President, in opposition to Mr. 

Adams, and re-elected in 1805, by a vote 

approaching towards unanimity. 

From the time of his final retirement 
from public life, in 1809, Mr. Jefferson 
lived as became a wise man. Surrounded 
by affectionate friends, his ardor in the 
pursuit of knowledge undiminished, 
with uncommon health and unbroken 
spirits, he was able to enjoy largely the 
rational pleasures of life, and to partake 
in that public jirosperity which he had 
so much contributed to produce. His 
kindness and hospitality, the charm of 
his conversation, the ease of his man- 
ners, the extent of his acquirements, 
and, especially, the full store of Revolu- 
tionary incidents which he had treas- 
ured in his memory, and which he knew 
when and how to dispense, rendered his 
abode in a high degree attractive to his 
admiring countrjanen, while his high 
public and scientific character drew 
towards him every intelligent, and edu- 
cated traveller from abroad, s^ Both Mr. 
Adams and Mr. Jefferson had the pleas- 
ure of knowing that the respect which 
they so largely received was not paid to 
their official stations. They were not 
men made great by office; but great 
men, on whom the country for its ovm 
benefit had conferred office. There was 
that in them which office did not give, 
' and which the relinquishment of office 
did not, and could not, take away. In 
their retirement, in the midst of their 
fellow-citizens, themselves private citi- 
1 zens, they enjoyed as high regard and 
i esteem as when filling the most impor- 
\^ant places of public trust. 

There remained to Mr. J^efferson yet 
one other work of patriotism and benefi- 
cence, the establishment of a university 
in his native State. To this object he 
devoted years of incessant and anxious 
attention, and by the enlightened liber- 
ality of the Legislature of Virginia, and 
the co-operation of other able and zeal- 
ous friends, he lived to see it accom- 
plished. May all success attend this 
infant seminary; and may those who 
enjoy its advantages, as often as their 



eyes shall rest on the neighboring height, 
recollect what they owe to their disin- 
terested and indefatigable benefactor; 
and may letters honor him who thus la- 
bored in the cause of letters ! i 

Thus useful, and thus respected, passed 
the old age of Tliomas Jefferson. But 
time was on its ever-ceaseless win<r, and 
was now bringing the last hour of this 
illustrious man. He saw its approach 
with undisturbed serenity. He counted 
the moments as tliey i:)assed, and beheld 
that his last sands were falling. That 
day, too, was at hand which he had 
helped to make immoilal. One wish, 
one hope, if it were not presumptuous, 
beat in his fainting breast. Could it be 
so, might it please God, he would desire 
once more to see the sun, once more to 
look abroad on the scene around him, 
on the great day of liberty. Heaven, in 
its mercy, fulfilled that prayer. He saw 
that sun, he enjoyed its sacred light, he 
thanked God for this mercy, and bowed 
his aged head to the gi-ave. "Felix, 
non vitse tantum claritate, sed etiam op- 
portunitate mortis." 

The last public labor of Mr. Jefferson 
naturally suggests the expression of the 
high praise which is due, both to him 
and to Mr. Adams, for their uniform 
and zealous attachment to learning, and 
to the cause of general knowledge. Of 
the advantages of learning, indeed, and 
of literary accomiilishments, their own 
characters were striking recommenda- 
tions and illustrations. They were schol- 
ars, ripe and good scholars; widely 
acquainted with ancient, as well as mod- 
ern literature, and not altogether unin- 
structed in the deeper sciences. Their 
acquirements, doubtless, were different, 
and so were the particular objects of 

1 Mr. Jefferson himself considered his ser- 
vices in establishinf^ the University of Virifiiiiu 
as among the most important rendered b_v him 
to the country. In Mr. Wirt's P'ulogy, it is 
stated that a private memorandum was found 
amonj; his pajiers, containing,' the followinj; in- 
scription to be |ila<i'd on liis monument: — 
"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson. Author of 
the Dechiration of Independence, of the Statutes 
of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father 
of the University of Virginia." Eulogies on 
Adams and Jefferson, p. 4'26. 



174 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



'■^eir literary pursuits; as their tastes 
aiid characters, in these respects, dif- 
fered like those of other men. Being, 
also, men of busy lives, with great ob- 
jects requiring action constantly before 
them, their attainments in letters did 
not become showy or obtrusive. Yet I 
would hazard the opinion, that, if we 
could now ascertain all the causes which 
gave them eminence and distinction in 
the midst of the great men with whom 
they acted, we should find not among 
the least their early acquisitions in liter- 
ature, the resources which it furnished, 
the promptitude and facility which it 
communicated, and the wide field it 
opened for analogy and illustration; 
giving them thus, on every subject, a 
larger view and a broader range, as well 
for discussion as for the government of 
their own conduct. 

Literature sometimes disgusts, and 
pretension to it much oftener disgusts, 
by appearing to hang' loosely on the 
character, like something foreign or ex- 
traneous, not a part, but an ill-adjusted 
appendage; or by seeming to overload 
and weigh it down by its unsightly bulk, 
like the productions of bad taste in 
architecture, where there is massy and 
cumbrous ornament without strength or 
solidity of column. This has exposed 
learning, and especially classical learn- 
ing, to reproach. Men have seen that 
it might exist without mental superi- 
ority, without vigor, without good taste, 
and without utility. But in such cases 
classical learning has only not inspired 
natural talent; or, at most, it has but 
made original feebleness of intellect, and 
natural bluntness of perception, some- 
thing more conspicuous. -, The question, 
after all, if it be a question, is, whether 
literature, ancient as well as modern, 
does not assist a good understanding, 
improve natural good taste, add polished 
armor to native strengtli, and render its 
possessor, not only more capable of de- 
riving private happiness from contem- 
plation and reflection, but more accom- 
plished also for action in the affairs of 
life, and especially for public action. 
Those whose memories we now honor 
were learned men; but their learning 



was kept in its proper place, and made 
subservient to the uses and objects of 
life. They were scholars, not common 
nor superficial; but their scholarship 
was so in keeping with their character, 
so blended and inwi'ought, that careless 
observers, or bad judges, not seeing an 
ostentatious display of it, might infer 
that it did not exist ; forgetting, or not 
knowing, that classical learning in men 
who act in conspicuous public stations, 
perform duties which exercise the faculty 
of writing, or address popular, deliber- 
ative, or judicial bodies, is often felt 
where it is little seen, and sometimes 
felt more effectually because it is not 
spen at all. 

( But the cause of knowledge, in a more N, 
enlarged sense, the cause of general 
knowledge and of popular education, 
had no warmer friends, nor more pow- 
erful advocates, than Mr. Adams and 
Mr. Jefferson. On this foundation they 
knew the whole republican system rested ; 
and this great and all-important truth 
they strove to impress, by all the means 
in their power. In the early publication 
already referred to, Mr. Adams ex- 
presses the strong and just sentiment, 
that the education of the poor is more 
important, even to the rich themselves, 
than all their own riches. On this 
great truth, indeed, is founded that un- 
rivalled, that invaluable political and 
moral institution, our own blessing and 
the glory of our fathers, the New Eng- 
land system of free schools. /' 

As the promotion of knowledge had 
been the object of their regard through 
life, so these great men made it the sub- 
ject of their testamentary bounty. Mr. 
Jefferson is understood to have be- 
queathed his library to the University of 
Virginia, and that of Mr. Adams is be- 
stowed on the inhabitants of Quincy. 

Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, fellow- 
citizens, were successively Presidents of 
the United States. The comparative 
merits of their respective administra- 
tions for a long time agitated and di- 
vided public opinion. They were rivals, 
each supported by numerous and power- 
ful portions of the people, for the high- 
est ofiice. This contest, partly the cause 



I 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



175 



and partly the consequence of the long 
existence of two great political parties 
in the country, is now part of the his- 
toiy of our government. We may nat- 
urally regret that any thing should have 
occurred to create difference and discord 
between those who had acted harmoni- 
ously and efficiently in the great con- 
cerns of the Revolution. But this is 
not the time, nor this the occasion, for en- 
tering into the grounds of that differ- 
ence, or for attempting to discuss the 
merits of the questions which it involves. 
As practical questions, they were can- 
vassed when the measures which they 
regarded were acted on and adopted; 
and as belonging to history, the time 
has not come for their consideration. 

It is, perhaps, not wonderful, that, 
when the Constitution of the United 
States first went into operation, differ- 
ent opinions should be entertained as to 
the extent of the powers conferred by it. 
Here was a natural source of diversity 
of sentiment. It is still less wonderful, 
that that event, nearly contemporaiy 
with our government under the present 
Constitution, which so entirely shocked 
all Europe, and disturbed our relations 
with her leading powers, should be 
thought, by different men, to have dif- 
ferent bearings on our own prosperity ; 
and that the early measures adopted by 
the government of the United States, in 
consequence of this new state of things, 
should be seen in opposite lights. It is 
for the future historian, when what now 
remains of prejudice and misconception 
shall have passed away, to state these 
different opinions, and pronounce im- 
partial judgment. In the mean time, 
all good men rejoice, and well may re- 
joice, that the sharpest differences sprung 
out of measures which, whether right or 
wrong, have ceased with the exigencies 
that gave them birth, and have left no 
permanent effect, either on the Consti- 
tution or on the general prosperity of the 
country. This remark, I am aware, may 
be supposed to have its exception in one 
measure, the alteration of the Constitu- 
tion as to the mode of choosing Presi- 
dent; but it is true in its general appli- 
cation. Thus the course of policy 



pursued towards France in 1798, on the 
one hand, and the measures of commer- 
cial restriction commenced in 1807, on 
the other, both subjects of warm and 
severe opposition, have passed away and 
left nothing behind them. They were 
temporary, and, whether wise or unwise, 
their consequences were limited to their 
respective occasions. It is equally clear, 
at the same time, and it is equally grat- 
ifying, that those measures of both ad- 
ministrations which were of durable 
importance, and which drew after them 
momentous and long remaining conse- 
quences, have received general appro- 
bation. Such was the organization, or 
rather the creation, of the navy, in the 
administration of Mr. Adams ; such the 
acquisition of Louisiana in that of Mr. 
Jefferson. The country, it may safely 
be added, is not likely to be willing 
either to approve, or to reprobate, indis- 
criminately, and in the aggregate, all 
the measures of either, or of any, ad- 
ministration. The dictate of reason 
and of justice is, that, holding each one 
his own sentiments on the points of 
difference, we imitate the great men 
themselves in the forbearance and mod- 
eration which they have cherished, and 
in the mutual respect and kindness 
which they have been so much inclined 
to feel and to reciprocate. 

No men, fellow-citizens, ever served 
their country with more entire exemp- 
tion from every imputation of selfish and 
mercenary motives, than those to whose 
memory we are paying these proofs of 
respect. A suspicion of any disposi- 
tion to enrich themselves or to profit by 
their public employments, never rested 
on either. No sordid motive approached 
them. The inheritance which they have 
left to their children is of their charac- 
ter and their fame. 

Fellow-citizens, I will detain you no 
longer by this faint and feeble tribute 
to the memory of the illustrious dead. 
Even in other hands, adequate justice 
could not be done to them, within the 
limits of this occasion. Their highest, 
their best praise, is your deep conviction 
of their merits, your affectionate grati- 
tude for their labors and their services. 



176 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



Q^ 



It is not my voice, it is this cessation of 
ordinary pursuits, this arresting of all 
attention, these solemn ceremonies, and 
this crowded house, which speak their 
eulogy. Their fame, indeed, is safe. 
That is now treasured up beyond the 
reach of accident. Although no sculp- 
tured marble should rise to their mem- 
ory, nor engraved stone bear record of 
their deeds, yet will their remembrance 
/ be as lasting as the land they honored. 
/ Marble columns may, indeed, moulder 
into dust, time may erase all impress 
from the crumbling stone, but their 
fame remains; for with American lib- 
erty it rose, and with American lib- 
erty ONLY can it perish.N^ It was the 
last swelling peal of yonder choir, 
" Their bodies are buried in peace, 

BUT their name LIVETH EVERMORE." 

I catch that solemn song, I echo that 
lofty strain of funeral triumph, " Their 

name LIVETH EVERMORE." 

Of the illustrious signers of the Dec- 
laration of Independence theie now re- 
mains only Charles Carroll. He 
seems an aged oak, standing alone on 
the plain, which time has spared a little 
longer after all its contemporaries have 
been levelled with the dust. Venerable 
object ! we delight to gather round its 
ti'unk, while yet it stands, and to dwell 
beneath its shadow. Sole survivor of 
an assembly of as great men as the 
world has witnessed, in a transaction 
one of the most important that history 
records, what thoughts, what interesting 
reflections, must fill his elevated and 
devout soul ! If he dwell on the past, 
how touching its recollections; if he sur- 
vey the present, how happy, how joyous, 
how full of the fruition of that hope which 
his ardent patriotism indulged ; if he 
glance at the future, how does the prospect 
of his country's advancement almost be- 
wilder his weakened conception ! Fortu- 
nate, distinguished patriot ! Interesting 
relic of the past ! Let him know that, 
while we honor the dead, we do not for- 
get the living; and that there is not a 
heart here which does not fervently pray 
that Heaven may keep him yet back 
from the society of his companions. 



And now, fellow-citizens, let us not re- 
tire from this occasion without a deep and 
solemn conviction of the duties which 
have devolved upon us. This lovely land, 
this glorious liberty, these benign insti- 
tutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, 
are ours; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, 
ours to transmit. Generations past and 
generations to come hold us responsible 
for this sacred trust. Our fathers, from 
behind, admonish us, with their anxious 
paternal voices ; posterity calls out to us, 
from the bosom of the future ; the world 
turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, all 
conjure us to acf wisely, and faithfully, 
in the relation which we sustain. AVe 
can never, indeed, pay the debt which is 
upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by 
religion, by the cultivation of every 
good principle and every good habit, 
we may hope to enjoy the blessing, 
through our day, and to leave it un- 
impaired to our children. Let us feel 
deeply how much of what we are and of 
what we possess we owe to this liberty, 
and to these institutions of government. 
Nature has, indeed, given us a soil which 
yields bounteously to the hand of in- 
dustry, the mighty and fruitful ocean is 
before us, and the skies over our heads 
shed health and vigor. But what are 
lands, and seas, and skies, to civilized 
man, without society, without knowl- 
edge, without morals, without religious 
culture; and how can these be enjoyed, 
in all their extent and all their excel- 
lence, but under the protection of wise 
institutions and a free government? Fel- 
low-citizens, there is not one of us, there 
is not one of us here present, who does 
not, at this moment, and at every mo- 
ment, experience, in his own condition, 
and in the condition of those most near 
and dear to him, the influence and the 
benefits of this liberty and these insti- 
tutions. Let us then acknowledge the 
blessing, let us feel it deeply and power- 
fully, let us cherish a strong affection 
for it, and resolve to maintain and per- 
petuate it. The blood of our fathers, 
let it not have been shed in vain ; the 
great hope of posterity, let it not be 
blasted. 

The striking attitude, too, in which 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



177 



•we stand to the world around us, a topic 
to which, I fear, I advert too often, and 
dwell on too long, cannot be altogetlier 
omitted here. Neither individuals nor 
nations can perform their part well, until 
they understand and feci its importance, 
and comprehend and justly ajipreeiate 
all the duties belonging to it. It is not 
to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a 
light and emi)ty feeling of self-impor- 
tance, but it is that we may judge justly 
of our situation, and of our own duties, 
that I earnestly urge upon you this con- 
sideration of our position and our char- 
acter among the nations of the earth. 
It cannot be denied, but by those who 
would dispute against the sun, that with 
America, and in America, a new era 
commences in luiman affairs. This era 
is distinguished by free representative 
governments, by entii'e religious liberty, 
by improved systems of national inter- 
course, by a newly awakened and an 
unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and 
by a diffusion of knowledge thi'ough the 
community, such as has been before alto- 
gether unknown and unheard of. Amer- 



ica, America, our country, fellow-citizens, 
our own dear and native land, is insep- 
arably connected, fast bound up, in 
fortune and by fate, with these great 
interests. If they fall, we fall with 
theiii; if they stand, it will be because 
we have maintained them. Let us con- 
template, then, this connection, which 
binds the prosperity of others to our 
own; and let us manfully discharge all 
the duties which it imposes. If we 
cherish the virtues and the principles of 
our fathers. Heaven will assist us to 
carry on the work of human liberty and 
human happiness. Auspicious omens 
cheer us. Great examples are before us. 
Our own firmament now sliines brightly 
upon our path. Washington is in 
the clear, upper sky. These other stai's 
have now joined the American constel- 
lation; they circle round their centre, 
and the heavens beam with new light. 
Beneath this illumination let us walk 
the course of life, and at its close de- 
voutly commend our beloved country, the 
common parent of us all, to the Divine 
Benignity. 



NOTE. 



Page 170. 

The question has often been asked, 
whether the auonynious speech afianist 
the Declaration of Independence, and the 
speech in support of it ascribed to John 
Adams in the preceding Discourse, are a 
portion of the debates wiiich actually took 
j)la('e in 177(5 in tlie Continental Congress. 
Not only has tiiis inquiry been propounded 
in the public })apers, but several letters on 
the subject have l)een addressed to Mr. 
Wubster and his frienils. For this reason, 
|it may be proper to state, that those 
speeches were composed by Mr. Webster, 
after the manner of the ancient historians, 
as embodyintr in an impressive form the 
arguments relied upon by the friends and 
o])ponents of the measure, respectively. 
'They of course represent the speeches that 
jwere actually made on b(jtli sides, but no 
^ejjort of the debates of this period iuis 
been preserved, and the orator on the i)res- 
ent occasion had no aid in framiuf^ these 
addresses, but wiiat was furnished by 
general tradition and the known line of 



argument pursued by the speakers and 
writers of that day for and a{j:ainst the 
measure of Independence. The tirst sen- 
tence of the speech ascribed to Mr. Adams 
was of course suggesfeil by tiie ])arting 
scene witli Jonathan Sewall, as described 
by Mr. Adams himself, in the Preface to 
the Letters of Novanglus and Massacliu- 
settensis. 

So much interest has been taken in this 
subject, that it has been thouj;ht proper, by 
way of settling the question in the most 
authentic manner, to {^ive publicity to the 
foUowinj^ answer, written by .Mr. Wi-bster 
to one of the letters of inquiry above al- 
luded to. 

" Washinijton, 22 January, 1846. 
"Dkau Sih: — 

" I have the honor to aeknowledtce the receipt 
of your letter of the 18lh instant. Its contents 
hanlly surprise me, as I hine rereived very 
many similar conununications. 

" Your iiKMiiry is easily answered. The Con- 
gress of the kevolution sat with clnsed doors. 
{{» proceedintrs were made known to the public 
from time to time, by printini,' its journal; but 



178 



ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 



the debates were not published. So far as I 
know, there is not existing, in print or manu- 
script, the speech, or any part or fragment of 
the speech, delivered by Sir. Adams on the ques- 
tion of the Declaration of Independence. We 
only know, from the testimony of his auditors, 
that he spoke with remarkable ability and char- 
acteristic earnestness. 

" The day after the Declaration was made, 
Mr. Adams, "in writing to a friend,i declared the 
event to be one that 'ought to be commemorat- 
ed, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of 
devotion to God Almighty. It"ougiit to be sol- 
emnized with pomp and parade, with shows, 
games, sports, guns, bells, bontires, and illumi- 

1 See Letters of John Adams to his Wife, 
Vol. I. p. 128, note. 



nations, from one end of this continent to the 
other, from this time forward, for evermore.' 

''And on the day of his death, hearing the 
noise of bells and cannon, he asked the occasion. 
On being reminded that it was ' Independent 
day,' he replied, 'Independence for ever!' 
These expressions were introduced into the 
speech supjiostd to have been made by him. 
For the rest I must be answerable. The speech 
was written by me, in my house in Boston, the 
dav before the delivery of the Discourse in Fan- 
euil Hall ; a poor subs"titute, I am sure it would 
appear to be, if we could now see the speech 
actually made by Mr. Adams on that transcen- 
deutly important occasion. 

" I am, respectfully, 

" Your obedient servant, 

"Daniel, Webster." 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



AN ARGUMENT MADE IN THK CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS, IN THE 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY TERM, 1827. 



[This was an action of assumpsit, brought 
oriprinally in the Cinniit Court of Louisiana, 
by Saunders, a citizen of Kentucky, aj^ainst 
oVcicn, a citizen of Louisiana. The plain- 
tiff below declared upon certain bills of 
exchange, drawn on the 30th of September, 
1806, by one Jordan, at Lexington, in the 
State of Kentucky, upon the defendant 
below, Ogden, in the city of New York, 
(the defendant then being a citizen and 
resident of the State of New York,) ac- 
cepted by him at tliecity of New York, and 
protested for non-payment. 
! The defendant below pleaded several 
' pleas, among which was a certificate of 
discharge under the act of the legislature 
of the State of New York, of April .3d, 
1801, for the relief of insolvent debtors, 
I commonly called the Three-Fourths Act. 

The jury found the facts in the form of 
a special verdict, on which the court ren- 
dered a judgment for the plaintiff below, 
and the cause was brought by writ of error 
before this court. The question which 
arose under this plea, as to the validity of 
the law of New York as being repugnant 
to the Constitution of the United States, 
was argued at February term, 1824, by Mr. 
Clay, Mr. D. B. Ogden, and Mr. Haines, for 
the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Webster 
and .Mr. Wheaton, for the defendant in error, 
and the cause was continued for advisement 
until the present term. It was again ar- 
gued at the present term, by Mr. Webster 
and Mr. Wheaton, against the validity, and 
by the Attorney-General, Mr. K. Living- 
ston, Mr I). B. Ogden, Mr. Jones, and Mr. 
Sampson, for the validity. 

Mr. Wheaton opene<l the argument for 
the defendant in error ; he was followed by 
the counsel for the plaintiff in error; and 
Mr. Webster replied as follows.] 

The question arising in this case is 
not more important, nor so important 
even, in its bearing on individual cases 
of private right, as in its character of a 



public political question. The Consti- 
tution was intended to accomplish a 
great political object. Its design was 
not so much to prevent injustice or in- 
jury in one case, or in successive single 
cases, as it was to make general salutary 
provisions, which, in their operation, 
should give seciu:ity to all contracts, 
stability to credit, uniformity among all 
the States in those things which mate- 
rially concern the foreign commerce of 
the country, and their own credit, trade, 
and intercourse with each other. The 
real question, is, therefore, a much 
broader one than has been argued. It 
is this: Whether the Constitution has 
not, for general political purposes, or- 
dained that bankrupt laws should be 
established only by national authority? 
We contend that such was the intention 
of the Constitution; an intention, as we 
think, plainly manifested in several of 
its provisions. 

The act of New York, under which 
this question arises, provides that a 
debtor may be discharged from all his 
debts, upon {issigning his property to 
trustees for the use of his creditors. 
When applied to the discharge of debts 
contracted before the date of the law, 
this court has decided that the act is 
invalid. 1 The act itself makes no dis- 
tinction between past antl future debts, 
but provides for the discharge of l)oth 
in the same manner. In the case, tluMi, 
of a debt already existing, it is admitted 

1 Sturges V. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 
122. 



180 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



that the act does impair the obligation 
of contracts. We wish the full extent 
of this decision to be well considered. 
It is not merely that the legislatm-e of 
the State cannot interfere by law, in the 
particular case of A or B, to injure or 
impair rights which have become vested 
under contracts; but it is, that they 
have no power by general law to regu- 
late the manner in which all debtors 
may be discharged from subsisting con- 
tracts; in other words, they cannot pass 
general bankrupt laws to be applied in 
presenti. Now, it is not contended that 
such laws are unjust, and ought not to 
be passed by any legislature. It is not 
said that they are unwise or impolitic. 
On the contrary, we know the general 
practice to be, that, when bankrupt 
laws are established, they make no dis- 
tinction between present and future 
debts. While all agree that special 
acts, made for individual cases, are un- 
just, all admit that a general law, made 
for all cases, may be both just and poli- 
tic. The question, then, which meets 
us on the threshold is this : If the Con- 
stitution meant to leave the States the 
power of establishing systems of bank- 
ruptcy to act upon future debts, what 
great or important object of a political 
nature is answered by denying the power 
of making such systems applicable to 
existing debts? 

The argument used in Sturges v. 
Croivninshield was, at least, a plausible 
and consistent argument. It maintained 
that the prohibition of the Constitution 
was levelled only against interferences 
in individual cases, and did not apply 
to general laws, whether those laws 
were retrospective or prospective in their 
operation. But the court rejected that 
conclusion. It decided that the Consti- 
tution was intended to apply to general 
laws or systems of bankruptcy ; that an 
act providing that all debtors might be 
discharged from all creditors, upon cer- 
tain conditions, was of no more validity 
than an act providing that a particular 
debtor. A, should be discharged on the 
same conditions from his particular cred- 
itor, B. 

It being thus decided that general 



laws are within the prohibition of the 
Constitution, it is for the plaintiff in 
error now to show on what ground, con- 
sistent with the general objects of the 
Constitution, he can establish a distinc- 
tion which can give effect to those gen- 
eral laws in their application to future 
debts, while it denies them effect in 
their application to subsisting debts. 
The words are, that " no State shall 
pass any law impairing the obligation 
of contracts." The general operation of 
all such laws is to impair that obliga- 
tion ; that is, to discharge the obligation 
without fulfilling it. This is admitted; 
and the only ground taken for the dis- 
tinction to stand on is, that, when the 
law was in existence at the time of the 
making of the contract, the parties must 
be supposed to have reference to it, or, as 
it is usually expressed, the law is made 
a part of the contract. Before consid- 
ering what foundation there is for this 
argument, it may be well to inquire 
what is that obligation of contracts 
of which the Constitution speaks, and 
whence is it derived. 

The definition given by the court in 
Sturges v. Croivninshield is sufficient for 
our present purpose. "A contract," 
say the court, "is an agreement to do 
some particular thing; the law binds 
the party to perform this agreement, 
and this is the obligation of the con- 
tract." 

It is indeed probable that the Consti- 
tution used the words in a somewhat 
more popular sense. We speak, for ex- 
ample, familiarly of a usurious contract, 
and yet we say, speaking technically, 
that a usurious agreement is no con- 
tract. 

By the obligation of a contract, we 
should understand the Constitution to 
mean, the duty of performing a legal 
ag-reement. If the contract be lawful, 
the party is bound to perform it. But 
bound by what? What is it that binds 
him? And this leads us to what we re- 
gard as a principal fallacy in the argu- 
ment on the other side. That argument 
supposes, and insists, that the whole 
obligation of a contract has its origin in 
the municipal law. This position we 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



181 



controvert. We do not say that it is 
that obligation which springs from con- 
science merely; but we deny that it is 
only such as springs from the particular 
law of the place where the contract is 
made. It must be a lawful contract, 
doubtless; that is, permitted and al- 
lowed; because society has a right to 
]irohibit all such contracts, as well as all 
sucli actions, as it deems to be mischiev- 
ous or injurious. But if the contract 
be such as the law of society tolerates, 
in other words, if it be lawful, then we 
say, the duty of performing it springs 
from universal law. And this is the 
concurrent sense of all the writers of 
authority. 

The duty of performing promises is 
thus shown to rest on universal law; 
and if, departing from this well-estab- 
lished pi'inciple, we now follow the 
teachers who instruct us that the obli- 
gation of a contract has its origin iu the 
law of a particular State, and is in all 
cases what that law makes it, and no 
more, and no less, we shall probably 
find ourselves involved in inextricable 
difficulties. A man promises, for a val- 
uable consideration, to pay money in 
New York. Is the obligation of that 
contract created by the laws of that 
State, or does it subsist independent of 
those laws? We contend that the obli- 
gation of a contract, that is, the duty of 
performing it, is not created by the law 
of the particular place where it is made, 
and dependent on that law for its exist- 
ence; but that it may subsist, and does 
subsist, without that law, and indepen- 
dent of it. The obligation is in the 
contract itself, in the assent of the par- 
ties, and in the sanction of universal 
law. This is the doctrine of Grotius, 
Vattel, Burlamaqui, Pothier, and Ku- 
therforth. The contract, doubtless, is 
necessarily to be enforced by the munici- 
pal law of the place where performance 
is demanded. The nmnicipal law acts 
on the contract after it is made, to com- 
pel its execution, or give damages for 
its violation. But this is a very differ- 
ent thing from the same law being the 
origin or fountain of the contract. 

Let us illustrate this matter by an ex- 



ample. Two persons contract together 
in New York for the delivery, by one to 
the other, of a domestic animal, a uten- 
sil of husbandly, or a weapon of war. 
This is a lawful contract, and, while the 
parties remain in New York, it is to be 
enforced by the laws of that State. But 
if they remove with the article to Penn- 
sylvania or Maryland, there a new law 
comes to act upon the contract, and to 
apply other remedies if it bel broken. 
Thus far the remedies are furnished by 
the laws of society. But suppose the 
same parties to go together to a savage 
wilderness, or a desert island, beyond 
the reach of the laws of any society. 
The obligation of the contract still sub- 
sists, and is as perfect as ever, and is 
now to be enforced by another law, that 
is, the law of nature; and the party to 
whom the promise was made has a right 
to take by force the animal, the utensil, 
or the weapon that was promised him. 
The right is as perfect here as it was iu 
Pennsylvania, or even in New York; 
but this could not be so if the obligation 
were created by the law of New York, 
or were dependent on that law for its 
existence, because the laws of that State 
can have no operation beyond its terri- 
tory. Let us reverse this example. 
Suppose a contract to be made between 
two persons cast ashore on an uninhab- 
ited territory, or in a place over which 
no law of society extends. There are 
such places, and contracts have been 
made by individuals casually there, and 
these contracts have been enforced in 
courts of law in civilized communities. 
Whence do such contracts derive their 
obligation, if not from universal law ? 

If these considerations show us that 
the obligation of a lawful contract does 
not derive its force from the particular 
law of the place where made, but may 
exist where that law does not exist, and 
be enforced where that law has no va- 
lidity, then it follows, we contend, that 
any statute which diminishes or lessens 
its obligation does impair it, whetlier 
it precedes or succeeds the contract iu 
date. The contract having an iudejien- 
dent origin, whenever the law comes to 
exist together with it, and iuterfeiea 



182 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



with it, it lessens, we say, and impairs, 
its own original and independent obli- 
gation. In the case before the court, 
the contract did not owe its existence to 
the particular law of New York ; it did 
not depend on that law, but could be 
enforced without the territory of that 
State, as well as within it. Neverthe- 
less, though legal, tjiough thus indepen- 
dently existing, though thus binding 
the party everywhere, and capable of 
being enforced everywhere, yet the stat- 
ute of New York says that it shall be 
discharged without payment. This, we 
say, impairs the obligation of that con- 
tract. It is admitted to have been legal 
in its inception, legal in its full extent, 
and capable of being enforced by other 
tribunals accoi'ding to its terms. An 
act, then, purporting to discharge it 
without pajTnent, is, as we contend, an 
act impairing its obligation. 

Here, however, we meet the opposite 
argument, stated on different occasions 
in different terms, but usually summed 
up in this, that the law itself is a part 
of the contract, and therefore cannot im- 
pair it. What does this mean? Let us 
seek for clear ideas. It does not mean 
that the law gives any particular con- 
struction to the terms of the contract, 
or that it makes the promise, or the con- 
sideration, or the time of performance, 
other than is expressed in the instru- 
ment itself. It can only mean, that it 
is to be taken as a part of the contract, 
or understanding of the parties, that the 
contract itself shall be enforced by such 
laws and regulations, respecting remedy 
and for the enforcement of contracts, as 
are in being in the State where it is 
made at the time of entering into it. 
This is meant, or nothing very clearly 
intelligible is meant, by saying the law 
is part of the contract. 

There is no authority in adjudged 
cases for the plaintiff in error but the 
State decisions which have been cited, 
and, as has already been stated, they all 
rest on this reason, that the law is part 
of the contract. 

Against this we contend, — 

1st. That, if the proposition were true, 
the consequence would not follow. 



2d. That the proposition itself cannot 
be maintained. 

1. If it w^ere true that the law is to be 
considered as part of the contract, tho 
consequence contended for would not 
follow; because, if this statute be part 
of the contract, so is every other legal 
or constitutional provision existing at 
the time which affects the contract, or 
which is capable of affecting it; and 
especially this very article of the Con- 
stitution of the United States is part of 
the contract. The plaintiff in error ar- 
gues in a complete circle. He supposes 
the parties to have had reference to it 
because it was a binding law, and yet he 
proves it to be a binding law only upon 
the ground that such reference was made 
to it. We come before the court alleg- 
ing the law to be void, as unconstitu- 
tional; they stop the inquiry by opposing 
to us the law itself. Is this logical? 
Is it not precisely objectio ejus, ciijus 
dig.foliilio petitur ? If one bring a bill to 
set aside a judgment, is that judgment 
itself a good plea in bar to the bill? 
We propose to inquire if this Law is of 
force to control our contract, or whether, 
by the Constitution of the United States, 
such force be not denied to it. The plain- 
tiff in error stops us by saying that it 
does control the contract, and so arrives 
shortly at the end of the debate. Is it 
not obvious, that, supposing the act of 
New York to be a part of the contract, 
the question still remains as undecided 
as ever. What is that act? Is it a law, 
or is it a nullity? a thing of force, or a 
thing of no force? Suppose the parties 
to have contemplated this act, what did 
they contemplate? its words only, or its 
legal effect? its words, or the force which 
the Constitution of the United States 
allows to it? If the parties contem- 
plated any law, they contemplated all 
the law that bore on their contract, the 
aggregate of all the statute and constitu- 
tional provisions. To suppose that they 
had in view one statute without regard- 
ing others, or that they contemplated a 
statute without considering that para- 
mount constitutional provisions might 
control or qualify that statute, or abro- 
gate it altogether, is unreasonable and 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



183 



inadmissible. " This contract," says 
one of the aiitliorities relied on, " is to 
be construed as if the law were specially 
recited in it." Let it be so for the sake 
of argument. But it is also to be con- 
strued as if the prohibitory clause of tlie 
Constitution were recited in it, and this 
brings us back again to the precise point 
from which we departed. 

The Constitution always accompanies 
the law, and the latter can have no force 
which the former does not allow to it. 
If the reasoning were thrown into the 
form of special pleading, it would stand 
thus: the plaintiff declares on his debt; 
the defendant pleads his discharge under 
the law ; the plaintiff alleges the law un- 
constitutional ; but the defendant says. 
You knew of its existence : to which the 
answer is obvious and irresistible, I 
i knew its existence on the statute-book 
of New Yoi'k, but I knew, at the same 
time, it was null and void under the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

The language of another leading de- 
cision is, "A law in force at the time of 
making the contract does not violate 
that contract ' ' ; but the very question 
is, whether there be any such law "in 
force ' ' ; for if the States have no au- 
thority to pass such laws, then no such 
law can be in force. The Constitution 
is a part of the contract as much as 
the law, and was as much in the con- 
templation of the parties. So that the 
proposition, if it be admitted that the 
law is part of the contract, leaves us 
just where it found us ; that is to say, 
under the necessity of comparing the law 
with the Constitution, and of deciding 
by such comparison whether it be valid 
or invalid. If the law be unconstitu- 
tional, it is void, and no party can be 
supposed to have had reference to a 
void law. If it be constitutional, no 
reference to it need be supposed. 

2. But the proposition itself cannot be 
maintained. The law is no part of the 
contract. What part is it? the prom- 
ise? the consideration? the condition? 
Clearly, it is neither of these. It is no 
term of the contract. It acts upon the 
contract only when it is broken, or to 
discharge the party from its obligation 



after it is broken. The municipal law 
is the force of society employed to com- 
pel the performance of contract-s. In 
every judgment in a suit on contract, 
the damages are given, and the impris- 
onment of the person or sale of goods 
awarded, not in performance of the con- 
tract, or as part of the contract, but as 
an indemnity for the breach of the con- 
tract. Even interest, which is a strong 
case, where it is not expressed in the 
contract itself, can only be given as 
damages. It is all but absurd to say 
that a man's goods are sold on a Jieri 
facias, or that he himself goes to jail, 
in pursuance of his contract. These are 
the penalties which the law inflicts for 
the breach of his contract. Doubtless, 
parties, when they enter into contracts, 
may well consider both what their rights 
and what their liabilities will be by 
the law, if such contracts be broken; 
but this contemplation of consequences 
which can ensue only when the contract 
is broken, is no part of the contract it- 
self. The law has nothing to do with 
the contract till it be broken ; how, then, 
can it be said to form a part of the con- 
tract itself? 

But there are other cogent and more 
specific reasons against considering the 
law as part of the contract. (1.) If the 
law be part of the contract, it cannot be 
repealed or altered; because, in such 
case, the repealing or modifying law it- 
self would impair the obligation of the 
contract. The insolvent law of New 
York, for example, authorizes the dis- 
charge of a debtor on the consent of two 
thirds of his creditors. A subsequent 
act requires the consent of three fourths ; 
but if the existing law be part of the 
contract, this latter law would be void. 
In short, nothing which is part of the 
contract can be varied but by consent of 
the parties; therefore the argument runs 
in ahsurdum ; for it proves that no laws 
for enforcing the contract, or giving 
remedies upon it, or any way affecting 
it, can be changed or modified between 
its creation and its end. If the law in 
question binds one party on the ground 
of assent to it, it binds both, and binds 
them until they agree to t<'rminut« its 



184 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



operation. (2.) If the party be bound 
by an implied assent to the law, as there- 
by making the law a part of the contract, 
how would it be if the parties had ex- 
pressly dissented, and agreed that the 
law should make no part of the contract? 
Suppose the promise to have been, that 
the promisor would pay at all events, and 
not take advantage of the statute; still, 
would not the statute operate on the 
whole, — on this particular agTeement 
and all? and does not this show that the 
law is no part of the contract, but some- 
thing above it? (3.) If the law of the 
place be part of the contract, one of its 
terms and conditions, how could it be 
enforced, as we all know it might be, in 
another jurisdiction, which should have 
no regard to the law of the place? Sup- 
pose the parties, after the contract, to 
remove to another State, do they carry 
the law with them as part of their con- 
tract? We all know they do not. Or 
take a common case. Some States have 
laws abolishing imprisonment for debt ; 
these laws, according to the argument, 
are all parts of the contract; how, then, 
can the party, when sued in another 
State, be imprisoned contrary to the 
terms of his contract? (4.) The argu- 
ment proves too much, inasmuch as it 
applies as strongly to prior as to subse- 
quent contracts. It is founded on a 
supposed assent to the exercise of legis- 
lative authority, without considering 
whether that exercise be legal or illegal. 
But it is equally fair to found the argu- 
ment on an implied assent to the poten- 
tial exercise of that authority. The 
implied reference to the control of legis- 
lative power is as reasonable and as 
strong when that power is dormant, as 
while it is in exercise. In one case, 
the ai-gument is, "The law existed, 
you knew it, and acquiesced." In the 
other it is, " The power to pass the law 
existed, you knew it, and took your 
chance." There is as clear an assent in 
one instance as in the other. Indeed, it 
is more reasonable and more sensible to 
imply a general assent to all the laws of 
society, present and to come, from the 
fact of living in it, than it is to imply a 
particular assent to a particular existing 



enactment. The true view of the matter 
is, that eveiy man is presumed to sub- 
mit to all power which may be lawfully 
exercised over him or his right, and no 
one should be presumed to submit to 
illegal acts of power, whether actual or 
contingent. (5.) But a main objection 
to this argument is, that it would render 
the whole constitutional provision idle 
and inoperative; and no explanatory 
words, if such words had been added in 
the Constitution, could have prevented 
this consequence. The law, it is said, 
is part of the contract ; it cannot, there- 
fore, impair the contract, because a con- 
tract cannot impair itself. Xow, if this 
argument be sound, the case would have 
been the same, whatever words the Con- 
stitution had used. If, for example, it 
had declared that no State should pass 
any law impairing contracts prospec- 
tively or retrospectively ; or any law im- 
pairing contracts, whether existing or 
future; or, whatever terms it had used 
to prohibit precisely such a law as is now 
before the court, — the prohibition woidd 
be totally nugatory if the law is to be 
taken as part of the contract; and the 
result would be, that, whatever may be 
the laws which the States by this clause 
of the Constitution are prohibited from 
passing, yet, if they in fact do pass such 
laws, those laws are valid, and bind par- 
ties by a supposed assent. 

But further, this idea, if well founded, 
would enable the States to defeat the 
whole constitutional provision by a gen- 
eral enactment. Suppose a State should 
declare, by law, that all contracts en- 
tered into therein should be subject to 
such laws as the legislature, at any 
time, or from time to time, might see 
fit to pass. This law, according to the 
argument, would enter into the contract, 
become a part of it, and authorize tlie 
interference of the legislative power 
with it, for any and all purposes, wholly 
uncontrolled by the Constitution of the 
United States. 

So much for the argument that the 
law is a part of the contract. We think 
it is shown to be not so; and if it were, 
the expected consequence would not fol- 
low. 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



185 



The inquiry, then, recurs, whether the 
hiw in question be such a hiw as the 
legisLature of New York had authority 
to pass. The question is general. We 
diifer from our learned adversaries on 
general principles. We differ as to the 
main scope and end of this constitutional 
provision. They think it entirely reme- 
dial; we regard it as preventive. They 
think it adopted to secure redress for 
violated private rights; to us, it seems 
intended to guard against great public 
mischiefs. They argue it as if it wero 
designed as an indemnity or protection 
for injured private rights, in individual 
cases of meiim aud fuuin ; we look upon 
it as a great political provision, favora- 
ble to the commerce and credit of the 
whole country. Certainly we do not 
deny its application to cases of violated 
private right. Such cases are clearly and 
unquestionably within its operation. 
Still, we think its main scope to be gen- 
eral and political. And this, we think, 
is proved by reference to the history of 
the country, and to the great objects 
which were sought to be attained by the 
establishment of the present govern- 
ment. Commerce, credit, and confi- 
dence were the principal things which 
did not exist under the old Confedera- 
tion, and which it was a main object of 
the present Constitution to create and 
establish. A vicious system of legisla- 
tion, a system of paper money and ten- 
der laws, had completely paralyzed in- 
dustry, threatened to beggar every man 
of property, and ultimately to ruin the 
country. U'he relation between debtor 
and creditor, always delicate, and al- 
ways dangerous whenever it divides so- 
ciety, and draws out the respective par- 
ties into different ranks and classes, was 
in such a coudiliou in the years 1787, 
1788, and 1789, as to threaten the over- 
throw of all goveiMuiient; and a revolu- 
tion was menaced, mucii more critical 
and alarming than that through whicli 
the country had recently passed. Tlie 
object of the new Constitution was to 
arrest these evils; to awaken industry 
by giving security to property; to estab- 
lish confidence, credit, and commerce, 
by salutary laws, to be enforced by the 



power of the whole comnmnity. The 
Revolutionary War was over, the coun- 
try had peace, but little domestic tran- 
quillity; it had liberty, but few of its 
enjoyments, and none of its security. 
The States had struggled together, but 
their union was imperfect. Tliey iiad 
freedom, but not an established course 
of justice. The Constitution was thei'e- 
fore framed, as it professes, " to form a 
more perfect union, to establish justice, 
to secure the blessings of liberty, and to 
insure domestic tranquillity." 

It is not pertinent to this occasion to 
advert to all the means by which these 
desirable ends were to be obtained. 
Some of them, closely connected with 
the subject now under consideration, 
are obvious and prominent. The ob- 
jects were commerce, credit, and mutual 
confidence in matters of property; and 
these required, among other things, a 
uniform standard of value or medium 
of payments. One of the first powers 
given to Congress, therefore, is that of 
coining money and fixing the value of 
foreign coins; and one of the first re- 
straints imposed on the States is tlie 
total proliibition to coin money. These 
two provisions are industriously followed 
up and completed by denying to the 
States all power to emit bills of credit, 
or to make any thing but gold and sil- 
ver a tender in the payment of debts. 
The whole control, therefore, over the 
standard of value and medium of pay- 
ments is vested in the general govern- 
ment. And here the question in- 
stantly suggests itself, Why should such 
pains be taken to confide to Congress 
alone this exclusive power of fixing on 
a standard of value, and of prescribing 
the medium in which debts shall be 
paid, if it is, after all, to be left to 
eveiy State to declare that debts may 
be discharged, and to prescribe how 
they may be discliarged, without any 
payment at all? Why say that no man 
shall be obliged to take, in discharge of 
a debt, paper money issued by tiie au- 
tliority of a State, and yet say tliat by 
the same authority the debt may be 
discharged without any payment what- 
ever? 



186 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



We contend, that the Constitution has 
not left its work thus unfinished. We 
contend, that, taking its provisions to- 
gether, it is apparent it was intended to 
provide for two things, intimately con- 
nected with each other. These are, — 

1. A medium for the payment of 
debts; and, 

2. A uniform manner of discharging 
debts, when they are to be discharged 
without payment. 

The arrangement of the grants and 
prohibitions contained in the Constitu- 
tion is fit to be regarded on this occa- 
sion. The grant to Congress and the 
prohibition on the States, though they 
are certainly to be construed together, 
are not contained in the same clauses. 
The powers granted to Congress are 
enumerated one after another in the 
eighth section; the principal limitations 
on those powei's, in the ninth section ; 
and the prohibitions to the States, in 
the tenth section. Now, in order to un- 
derstand whether any particular power 
be exclusively vested in Congress, it is 
necessary to read the terms of the grant, 
together with the terms of the prohibi- 
tion. Take an example from that power 
of which we have been speaking, the 
coinage power. Here the grant to Con- 
gress is, "To coin money, regulate the 
value thereof, and of foreign coins." 
Now, the correlative prohibition on the 
States, though found in another section, is 
undoubtedly to be taken in immediate 
connection with the foregoing, as much as 
if it had been found in the same clause. 
The only just reading of these provis- 
ions, therefore, is this: " Congress shall 
have power to coin money, regulate the 
value thereof, and of foreign coin; but 
no State shall coin money, emit bills of 
credit, or make any thing but gold and 
silver coin a tender in payment of 
debts." 

These provisions respect the medium 
of payment, or standard of value, and, 
thus collated, their joint result is clear 
and decisive. We think the result clear, 
also, of those provisions which respect 
the discharge of debts without payment. 
Collated in like manner, they stand thus: 
" Congress shall have power to establish 



uniform laws on the subject of bank- 
ruptcies throughout the United States ; 
but no State shall pass any law impair- 
ing the obligation of contracts." This 
collocation cannot be objected to, if 
they refer to the same subject-matter; 
and that they do refer to the same sub- 
ject-matter we have the authority of 
this court for saying, because this 
court solemnly determined, in Sturges 
V. Crowninshield , that this prohibition 
on the States did apply to systems of 
bankruptcy. It must be now taken, 
therefore, that State bankrupt laws were 
in the mind of the Convention when the 
prohibition was adopted, and therefore 
the grant to Congress on the subject of 
bankrupt laws, and the prohibition to 
the States on the same subject, are 
properly to be taken and read together; 
and being thus read together, is not the 
intention clear to take away from the 
States the power of passing bankrupt 
laws, since, while enacted by them, such 
laws would not be uniform, and to con- 
fer the power exclusively on Congress, 
by whom uniform laws could be estab- 
lished? 

Suppose the order of arrangement in 
the Constitution had been otherwise than 
it is, and that the prohibitions to the 
States had preceded the grants of power 
to Congress, the two powers, when col- 
lated, would then have read thus: " No 
State shall pass any law impairing the 
obligation of contracts; but Congress 
may establish uniform laws on the sub- 
ject of bankruptcies." Could any man 
have doubted, in that case, that the 
meaning was, that the States should not 
pass laws discharging debts without pay- 
ment, but that Congress might establish 
uniform bankrupt acts? And yet this 
inversion of the order of the clavises dees 
not alter their sense. We contend, that 
Congress alone possesses the power of 
establishing bankrupt laws; and al- 
though we are aware that, in Sturges v. 
Crowninshield, the court decided that 
such an exclusive power could not be 
inferred from the words of the grant in 
the seventh section, we yet would re- 
spectfully request the bench to recon- 
sider this point. We think it could not 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



187 



have been intended that both the States 
and general government should exercise 
this power; and therefore, that a grant 
to one implies a prohibition on the otlier. 
But not to press a topic which the court 
has already had under its consideration, 
we contend, that, even witiiout reading 
the clauses of the Constitution in the 
connection which we have suggested, 
and which is believed to be the true one, 
the prohibition in the tenth section, 
taken by itself, does forbid tlie enact- 
ment of State bankrupt laws, as applied 
to future as well as present debts. We 
argue this from the words of the prohi- 
bition, from the association they are 
found in, and from the objects intended. 
1. The words are general. The States 
can pass no law impairing contracts; 
that is, any contract. In the nature of 
things a law may impair a future con- 
tract, and therefore such contract is 
within the protection of the Constitu- 
tion. The words being general, it is for 
the other side to show a limitation ; and 
this, it is submitted, they have wholly 
failed to do, unless they shall have es- 
tablished the doctrine that the law itself 
is part of the contract. It may be added, 
that the particular expression of the Con- 
stitution is worth regarding. The thing 
prohibited is called a laio, not an act. 
A law, in its general acceptation, is a 
rule prescribed for future conduct, not 
a legislative interference with existing 
ri<rhts. The framers of the Constitu- 
tiou would hardly have given the appel- 
lation of law to violent invasions of 
individual right, or individual property, 
by acts of legislative power. Although, 
doubtless, such acts fall within this pro- 
hibition, yet they are prohibited also by 
general principles, and by the constitu- 
tions of the States, and therefore further 
provision against such acts was not so 
necessary as against other mischiefs. 

2. The most conclusive argiunent, per- 
haps, arises from the connection in wiiich 
the clause stands. The words of the 
prohibition, so far as it applies to civil 
rights, or rights of property, are, tliat 
"no State shall coin money, emit bills 
of credit, make any thing but gold and 
silver coin a tender in the payment of 



debts, or pass any law impairing the ob- 
ligation of contracts." The prohibition 
of attainders, and ex post facto laws, re- 
fers entirely to criminal proceedings, and 
therefore should be considered as stand- 
ing by itself; but the other parts of the 
prohibition are connected by the sub- 
ject-matter, and ought, therefore, to be 
construed together. Taking the words 
thus together, according to their natural 
connection, how is it possible to give a 
more limited construction to the term 
"contracts," in the last branch of the 
sentence, than to the word " debts," in 
that immediately preceding? Can a 
State make any thing but gold and sil- 
ver a tender in payment of future debts? 
This nobody pretends. But what ground 
is there for a distinction? No State shall 
make any thing but gold and silver a 
tender in the payment of debts, nor pass 
any law impairing the obligation of con- 
tracts. Now, by what reasoning is it 
made out that the debts here spoken of 
are any debts, either existing or future, 
but that the contracts spoken of are sub- 
sisting contracts only? Such a distinc- 
tion seems to us wholly arbitrary. We 
see no ground for it. Suppose the arti- 
cle, where it uses the word ihhts, had 
used the word contracts. The sense 
would have been the same then that it 
now is; but the identity of terms would 
have made the nature of the distinction 
now contended for somewhat more obvi- 
ous. Thus altered, the clause would 
read, that no State should make any 
thing but gold and silver a tender in dis- 
charge of contracts, nor pass any law im- 
pairing the obligation of contracts; yet 
the first of these expressions would have 
been held to apply to all contracts, and the 
last to subsisting contracts only. This 
shows the consequence of what is now 
contended for in a strong liglit. It is 
certain that the substitution of the word 
contracts for dclils woidd not alter tlie 
.sense; and an argument that could not 
be sustained, if .such substitution were 
made, cannot be sustained now. Wo 
maintain, therefore, that, if tender laws 
may not be made for future debts, neither 
can bankrupt laws bo made for future 
contracts. All the arguments used hero 



188 



THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 



may be applied with equal force to ten- 
der laws for future debts. It may be 
said, for instance, that, when it speaks 
of debts, the Constitution means existing 
debts, and not mere possibilities of fu- 
ture debt; that the object was to pre- 
serve vested rights; and that if a man, 
after a tender law had passed, had con- 
tracted a debt, the manner in which that 
tender law authorized that debt to be 
discharged became part of the contract, 
and that the whole debt, or whole obli- 
gation, was thus qualified by the pre- 
existing law, and was no more than a 
contract to deliver so much paper money, 
or whatever other article might be made 
a tender, as the original bargain ex- 
pressed. Arguments of this sort will 
no* ^e found wanting in favor of tender 
laws, if the court yield to similar argu- 
ments in favor of bankrupt laws. 

These several prohibitions of the Con- 
stitution stand in the same paragraph; 
they have the same purpose, and were 
introduced for the same object; they are 
expressed in words of similar import, in 
grammar, and in sense ; they are subject 
to the same construction, and we think 
no reason has yet been given for impos- 
ing an important I'estriction on one part 
of them, which does not equally show 
that the same restriction might be im- 
posed also on the other part. 

We have already endeavored to main- 
tain, that one great political object in- 
tended by the Constitution would be 
defeated, if this construction were al- 
lowed to prevail. As an object of polit- 
ical regulation, it was not important to 
prevent the States from passing bank- 
rupt laws applicable to present debts, 
while the power was left to them in re- 
gard to future debts ; nor was it at all 
important, in a political point of view, 
to prohibit tender laws as to future 
debts, while it was yet left to the States 
to pass laws for the discharge of such 
debts, which, after all, are little differ- 
ent in principle from tender laws. Look 
at the law before the court in this view. 



It provides, that, if the debtor will sur- 
render, offer, or tender to trustees, for 
the benefit of his creditors, all his estate 
and effects, he shall be discharged from 
all his debts. If it had autliorized a ten- 
der of any thing but money to any one 
creditor, though it were of a value equal 
to the debt, and thereupon provided for a 
discharge, it would have been clearly in- 
valid. Yet it is maintained to be good, 
merely because it is made for all cred- 
itors, and seeks a discharge from all 
debts; although the thing tendered may 
not be equivalent to a shilling in the 
pound of those debts. This shows, 
again, very clearly, how the Constitu- 
tion has failed of its purpose, if, having 
in terms prohibited all tender laws, and 
taken so much pains to establish a uni- 
form medium of payment, it has yet left 
the States the power of discharging 
debts, as they may see fit, without any 
payment at all. 

To recapitulate what has been said, 
we maintain, first, that the Constitu- 
tion, by its grants to Congress and its 
prohibitions on the States, has sought 
to establish one uniform standard of 
value, or medium of payment. Second, 
that, by like means, it has endeavored 
to provide for one uniform mode of dis- 
charging debts, when they are to be dis- 
charged without payment. Third, that 
these objects are connected, and that the 
first loses much of its importance, if the 
last, also, be not accomplished. Fourth, 
that, reading the grant to Congress and 
the prohibition on the States together, 
the inference is sti'ong that the Consti- 
tution intended to confer an exclusive 
power to pass bankrupt laws on Con- 
gress. Fifth, that the prohibition in the 
tenth section reaches to all contracts, 
existing or future, in the same way that 
the other prohibition in the same sec- 
tion extends to all debts existing or 
future. Sixthly, that, upon any other 
construction, one great political object 
of the Constitution will fail of its accom- 
plishment. 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 

AN ARGUMENT ON ' THE TRIAL OF JOHN FRANCIS KNAPP, FOR THE MUR- 
DER OF JOSEPH WHITE, OF SALEM, IN ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, 
ON THE NIGHT OF THE 6th OF APRIL, 1830. 



[The followinf;: argument was addressed 
to the jury at a trial for a remarkable mur- 
der. A more extraordinary case never oc- 
curred in this country, nor is it equalled in 
strange interest by any trial in tlie French 
('(iHses Ce'lehres or the English Slate Trials. 
Deep sensation and intense curiosity were 
e.xcited through the whole country, at the 
time of the occurrence of the event, not 
only by the atrocity of the crime, but by 
the position of the victim, and the romantic 
incidents in the detection and fate of the 
assassin and his accomplices. 

The following outline of the facts will 
assist the reader to understand the bearings 
of the argument. 

Joseph White, Esq. was found murdered 
in his bed, in his mansion-house, on the 
morning of the 7th of April, 1830. He was 
a wealthy merchant of Salem, eighty-two 
years of age, and had for many years given 
up active business. His servant-man rose 
that morning at six o'clock, and on going 
down into the kitchen, and opening the 
shutters of the window, saw that the back 
window of the east parlor was open, and 
that a plank was raised to the window from 
the back yard ; he then went into the par- 
lor, but saw no trace of any person having 
been there. He went to the apartment of 
the maid-servant, and told her. and then 
into Mr. Wiiite's chamber by its back door, 
and saw that the door of his chamber, lead- 
ing into the front entry, was open. On ap- 
proaching the bed, he found the bed-clothes 
turned down, and Mr. White dead, his coun- 
tenance pallid, and his night-clothes and bed 
drenched in blood. He hastened to the 
neighboring houses to make known the 
event. He and the maid-servant were 
the only persons who slept in the house 
that nijrht, except Mr. White himself, whose 
niece, Mrs. Beckford, his house-keeper, was 
then absent on a visit to her daughter, at 
Wenham. 

The physicians and the coroner's jury, who 
were called to examine the body, found on 



it thirteen deep stabs, made as if by a sharp 
dirk or poniard, and the appearance of a 
heavy blow on the left temple, which had 
fractured the skull, but not broken tb'L '.'<n. 
The body was cold, and appeared to have 
been lifeless many hours. 

On examining the apartments of the 
liouse, it did not appear that any valuable 
articles had been taken, or the house ran- 
sacked for them ; there was a rouleau of 
doubloons in an iron chest in his chamber, 
and costly plate in other apartments, none 
of which was missing. 

The perpetration of such an atrocious 
crime, in the most populous and central 
part of the town and in the most conipactly 
built street, and under circumstances imli- 
cating the utmost coolness, deliberation, and 
audacity, deeply agitated and aroused tlie 
whole community; ingenuity was baffled in 
attempting even to conjecture a motive for 
the deed ; and all the citizens were led to 
fear that the same fate might await them 
in the defenceless and helpless hours of 
slumber. For several days, persons passing 
through the streets might liear the contimial 
sound of the hammer, while carpenters and 
smiths were fixing bolts to doors and fasten- 
ings to windows. Many, for defence, fur- 
nished themselves with cutlasses, fire-arms, 
and watc'h-dogs. Large rewards for the 
detection of the author or authors of the 
murder were offered by the heirs of the de- 
ceased, by the selectmen of the town, and 
by the CJovernor of the State. The citi- 
zens held a public meeting, and ajipointed 
a Connnittee of Vigilance, of twenty-seven 
members, to make all possible exertions to 
ferret out the offenders. 

While the public mind was thus excited 
and anxious, it was annoimced that a bold 
attempt at highway robbery was made in 
Weiiiiam, bv three" foiiti)a(is, on Joscjili J. 
Knapp, Jr. and John Francis Knapp, on the 
evening of the 27tli of April, while tiiey 
were returning in a chaise from Salem to 
their residence in Wenham. They ap- 



190 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



peared before the investigating eommittce, 
and testified tliat, after nine o'clock, near 
tlie Wenham Pond, they discovered three 
men approaching. One came near, seized 
the bridle, and stopped the horse, while the 
other two came, one on each side, and seized 
a trunk in tlie bottom of the chaise. Frank 
Knapp drew a sword from his cane and 
made a thrust at one, and Joseph with the 
but-end of his whip gave the other. a heavy 
blow across the face. This bold resistance 
made them fall back. Joseph sprung from 
the chaise to assail the robbers. One of them 
then gave a shrill whistle, when they fled, 
and, leaping over the wall, were soon lost 
in the darkness. One had a weapon like an 
ivory dirk-handle, was clad in a sailor's 
short jacket, cap, and had whiskers ; an- 
other wore a long coat, with bright buttons ; 
all three were good-sized men. Frank,' too, 
sprung from the chaise, and pursued with 
vigor, but all in vain. 

The account of this unusual and bold 
attempt at robbery, thus given by the 
Knapps, was immediately published in the 
Salem newspapers, with the editorial re- 
mark, that " these gentlemen are well 
known in this town, and their respectability 
and veracity are not questioned by any of 
our citizens." 

Not the slightest clew to the murder could 
be found for several weeks, and the mystery 
seemed to be impenetrable. At length a 
rumor reached the ear of the committee 
that a prisoner in the jail at New Bedford, 
seventy miles from Salem, confined there 
on a charge of shoplifting, had intimated 
that he could make important disclosures. 
A confidential messenger was immediately 
sent, to ascertain what he knew on the sub- 
ject. The prisoner's name was Hatch ; he 
had been committed before the murder. 
He stated that, some months before the 
murder, while he was at large, he had asso- 
ciated in Salem with Richard Crownin- 
shield, Jr., of Danvers, and had often heard 
Crowninshield express his intention to de- 
stroy the life of Mr. White. Crowninshield 
was a young man, of bad reputation ; though 
lie had never been convicted of any offence, 
he was strongly suspected of several hei- 
nous robberies. He was of dark and re- 
served deportment, temperate and wicked, 
daring and wary, subtle and obdurate, of 
great adroitness, boldness, and self-com- 
mand. He had for several years frequented 
the haunts of vice in Salem ; and though he 
was often spoken of as a dangerous man, 
his person was known to few, for he never 
walked the streets by daylight. Among 
his few associates he was a leader and a 
despot. 

The disclosures of Hatch received credit. 
When the Supreme Court met at Ipswich, 
the Attorney-General, Morton, moved for a 
writ of habeas corpus ad testif., and Hatch was 
carried in chains from New Bedford before 
the grand jury, and on his testimony an in- 



dictment was found against Crowninshield. 
Other witnesses testified that, on the niglit 
of the murder, his brother, George Crown- 
inshield, Colonel Benjamin Selman, of Mar- 
blehead, and Daniel Chase, of Lynn, were 
together in Salem, at a gambling-house 
usually frequented by Richard ; these were 
indicted as accomplices in the crime. They 
were all arrested on the 2d of May, ar- 
raigned on tlie indictment, and committed 
to prison to await the sitting of a court that 
should have jurisdiction of the offence. 

The Committee of Vigilance, however, 
continued to hold frequent meetings in 
order to discover further proof, for it was 
doubted by many whet^ier the evidence al- 
ready obtained would be sulficient to con- 
vict the accused. 

A fortnight afterwards, on the 15th of 
May, Captain Joseph J. Knapp, a ship- 
master and merchant, a man of good 
character, received by mail the following 
letter : — 

Chakles Grant, Jr., to Joseph J. Knapp. 

"■Belfast, May 12, 1830. 

"Dear Sir, — I have taken the pen at this 
time to address an utter stranger, and, strange 
as it may seem to you, it is for the purpose of 
requesting the loan of three hundred and fifty 
dollars, for which I can give you no security but 
my word, and in this case consider this to be 
sufficient. Jly call for money at this time is 
pressing, or I would not trouble you; but with 
that sum, I have the prospect of turning it to so 
much advantage, as to be able to refund it with 
interest in the course of six months. At all 
events, I think it will be for your interest to 
comply with my request, and that immediately, 
— that is, not to put off any longer tlian you 
receive this. Then set down and enclose me the 
money with as much despatch as possible, for 
your own interest. This, Sir, is mj- advice; and 
if you do not comply with it, the short period 
between now and November will convince j-ou 
that you have denied a re(iuest, the granting of 
which will never injure you, the refusal of which 
will ruin you. Are you surprised at this asser- 
tion — rest assured that I make it, reserving to 
myself the reasons and a series of facts, which 
are founded on such a bottom as will bid defiance 
to property or quality. It is useless for me to 
enter into a discussion of facts which must in- 
evitably harrow up your soul. No, I will niereU' 
tell you that I am acquainted with your brother 
Franklin, and also the business that he was 
transacting for you on the 2d of April last; and 
that I think that you was very extravagant in 
giving one thousand dollars to the person that 
would execute the business for you. But you 
know best about that ; you see that such things 
will leak out. To conclude, Sir. I will inform 
you that there is a gentleman of my acquaint- 
ance in Salem, that will observe that you do not 
leave town before the first of June, giving you 
sufficient time between now and then to comph' 
with my request ; and if I do not receive a line 
from you, together with the above sum, before 
the 2"2d of this month, I shall wait upon you 
with an assistant. I have said enough to con- 
vince you of my knowledge, and merely inform 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



191 



v(ui that you can, when you answer, be as brief 
as possible. 

" Diivc't vours to 
"Chakles'Gkam', Jr., of Prospect, Maine." 

This letter was an uiiintelligihle enigma 
to Captain Kna])p ; he knew no man of tlie 
name of Charles Grant, Jr., and hail no ac- 
quaintance at Belfast, a town in Maine, two 
hundred miles distant from Salem. After 
poring over it in vain, he handed it to his 
son, Nathaniel I'hippen Knapp, a young 
lawyer; to him also the letter was an inex- 
plicable riddle. The receiving of such a 
threuieiung letter, at a time when so many 
felt insecure, and were apprehensive of dan- 
ger, demanded their attention. Captain 
Knapj) and liis son I'hippen, therefore, con- 
cluded to ride to Wenham, seven miles dis- 
tant, and show the letter to Captain Knapp 's 
other two sons, Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. and 
John Francis Knapp, who were then resid- 
ing at Wenham with Mrs. Beckford, the 
niece and late house-keeper of Mr. White, 
and the mother of the wife of J. J- Knapp, 
Jr. The latter perused the letter, told his 
father it " contained a devilish lot of trash," 
and requested hiin to hand it to the Com- 
mittee of Vigilance. Captain Knapp, on 
his return to Salem that evening, accord- 
ingly delivered the letter to the chairman of 
the Committee. 

The next day J. J. Knapp, Jr. went to 
Salem, and requested one of his friends to 
drop into the Salem post-office the two fol- 
lowing pseudonymous letters. 

"i»/rtyl3, 1830. 
"Gentlemen of the Committee of Vig- 
ilance, — Hearing that you have taken up four 
young men on suspicion "of being concerned in 
the murder of Jlr. White. I think it time to in- 
form you that Steven White came to me one 
night and told me, if I would remove the old 
gentleman, he would give me live thousand dol- 
lars ; he said he was afraid he would alter his 
will if he lived any longer. I told him I would 
do it, but I was afeared to go into the house, so 
he said he w.iuld go with me, that he would try- 
to get into the house in the evening and open 
the window, would then go home and go to bed 
and meet me again about eleven. I found him, 
and we both went into his chamber. I struck 
him on the head with a heavy piece of lead, and 
then slabbed him with a dirk; he made the 
finishing strokes witii another. He promised to 
send me the money next evening, and has not 
sent it yet, which is the reason that I mention 
this. 

" Yours, &c., 

"Grant." 

This letter was directed on the outside to 
the "Hon. Gideon Barstow, Salem," and 
put into the post-office on Sunday evening, 
May 16, 1830. 

''Lynn, May 12, 1830. 
"Mr. White will send the $5,000, or a part 
of it, before to-morrow night, or suffer the pain- 
ful consequences. 

" N. Claxton, 4th." 



This letter was addressed to tlie " Hon. 
Stephen White, Salem, Mass.," and wa.s 
also put into tlie post-office in Salem on 
Sunday evening. 

When Kiuii)p delivered these letters to 
his friend, he said his father had received 
an anonymous letter, and " What 1 want 
you for is to put these in the post-oltice in 
order to nip this silly affair in tiie Imd." 

The Hon. Stephen Wiiite, mentioned in 
these letters, was a nephew of Josepii White, 
and tiie legatee of the principal part of his 
large jiroperty. 

\Vlien the Committee of Vigilance read 
and considered the letter, purjjorting to he 
signed by Charles (jrant, Jr., which had been 
delivered to them by Ca])tain Kna])]), they 
were impressed with the belief that it con- 
tained a clew which might lead to important 
disclosures. As they had si)ared no pains 
or expense in their investigations, they im- 
me<liately despatched a discreet messenger 
to Prospect, in Maine ; he explained his busi- 
ness confidentially to the ))ostmaster there, 
deposited a letter addressed to (^iiarles 
Grant, Jr., and awaited the call of Grant 
to receive it. He soon calleil for it, when 
an officer, stationed in the house, stepjjcd 
forward and arrested Grant. On examin- 
ing him, it appeared that liis true name was 
Palmer, a young man of genteel ajuiear- 
ance, resident in the adjoining town of Bel- 
fast. He had been a convict in Maine, and 
had served a term in the State's prison in 
that State. Conscious that the circum- 
stances justified the belief that he had liad 
a hand in the murder, he readily made 
known, while he protested his own inno- 
cence, that he could unfold the whole mys- 
tery. He then disclosed that he had in'cn 
an'associate of K. Crowninshield, Jr. and 
George Crowninshield; had sjient jiart of 
the winter at Danvers antl Salem, under the 
name of Carr; part of the time he had been 
their inmate, concealed in their father's 
house in Danvers; that on the 2d of April 
he saw from the windows of the house 
Frank Knajjp and a young man named 
Allen ride up to the house; that (ieorge 
walked away with Frank, and Richard with 
Allen; that" on their return, George told 
Richard that Frank wislutl them to under- 
take to kill Mr. White, and that J.J. Knai)]). 
Jr. would pay one thousand dollars for tiio 
job. They proposed various modes of exe- 
cuting it, and asked Palmer to be concerned, 
which he declined. George said the hou.se- 
keeper would be away at the time ; tliat tiie 
object of Josepii J. "Knai>i), Jr. was to de- 
stroy the will, because it gave most of the 
property to Stephen While; tiial Joseph J. 
Knapp, Jr. was first to destroy tiie will ; 
that he could get from tlie house-keeper the 
kevs of tlie iron chest in wiiich it was kept ; 
thiit Frank called again the same ilay, in a 
chaise, and rode away with Richard; and 
that on the night of the murder Palmer 
stayed at tlie Half-way House, in Lynn. 



192 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



The messenger, on obtaining this dis- 
closure from Palmer, without delay com- 
municated it by mail to the Committee, and 
on the 26th of May, a warrant was issued 
against Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. and John 
Francis Knapp, and they were taken into 
custody at Wenham, where they were re- 
siding in the. family of Mrs. Beckford, 
mother of the wife of Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. 
They were then imprisoned to await the 
arrival of Palmer, for their examination. 

The two Knapps were young ship- 
masters, of a respectable family. 

Joseph J. Knapp, Jr., on the third day of 
his imprisonment, made a full confession 
that he projected the murder. He knew 
that Mr. White had made his will, and given 
to Mrs. Beckford a legacy of fifteen thou- 
sand dollars ; but if he died without leaving 
a will, he expected she would inherit nearly 
. two hundred thousand dollars. In Feb- 
ruary he made known to his brother his 
desire to make way with Mr. White, in- 
tending first to abstract and destroy the 
will. Frank agreed to employ an assassin, 
and negotiated with R. Crowninshield, Jr., 
who agreed to do the deed for a reward of 
one thousand dollars ; Joseph agreed to pay 
that sum, and, as he had access to the house 
at his pleasure, he was to unbar and un- 
fasten the back window, so that Crownin- 
shield might gain easy entrance. Four days 
before the murder, while they were deliber- 
ating on the mode of compassing it, he went 
into Mr. White's chamber, and, finding the 
key in the iron chest, unlocked it, took the 
will, put it in his chaise-box, covered it with 
hay, carried it to Wenham, kept it till after 
the murder, and then burned it. After se- 
curing the will, he gave notice to Crownin- 
shield that all was ready. In the evening 
of that day he had a meeting with Crownin- 
shield at the centre of the common, who 
showed him a bludgeon and dagger, with 
which the murder was to be committed. 
Knapp asked him if he meant to do it that 
night ; Crowninshield said he thought not, 
he did not feel like it ; Knapp then went to 
Wenham. Knapp ascertained oh Sunday, 
the 4th of April, that Mr. White had gone 
to take tea with a relative in Chestnut 
Street. Crowninshield intended to dirk 
him on his way home in the evening, but 
Mr. White returned before dark. It was 
next arranged for the night of the 6th, and 
Knapp was on some pretext to prevail on 
Mrs. Beckford to visit her daughters at 
Wenham, and to spend the night there. 
He said that, all preparations being thus 
complete. Crowninshield and Frank met 
about ten o'clock in the evening of the 6th, 
in Brown Street, which passes the rear of 
the garden of Mr. White, and stood some 
time in a spot from which they could ob- 
serve the movements in the liouse, and per- 
ceive when Mr. White and his two servants 
retired to bed. Crowninshield requested 
Frank to go home ; he did so, but soon re- 



turned to the same spot. Crowninshield, in 
the mean time, had started and passed round 
through Newbury Street and Essex Street 
to the front of the house, entered the postern 
gate, passed to the rear of the house, placed 
a plank against the house, climbed to .the 
window, opened it, entered the house alone, 
passed up the staircase, opened the door of 
the sleeping-chamber, approached the bed- 
side,gave Mr. White a heavy and mortal blow 
on the head with a bludgeon, and then with 
a dirk gave him many stabs in his body. 
Crowninshield said, that, after he had " done 
for the old man," he put his fingers on his 
pulse to make certain he was dead. He 
then retired from the house, hurried back 
through Brown Street, where he met Frank, 
waiting to learn the event. Crowninshield 
ran down Howard Street, a solitary place, 
and hid the club under the steps of a meet- 
ing-house. He then went home to Danvers. 

Joseph confessed further that the ac- 
count of the Wenham robbery, on the 27th 
of April, was a sheer fabrication. After 
the murder Crowninshield went to Wen- 
ham in company with Frank to call for the 
one thousand dollars. He was not able to 
pay the whole, but gave him one hundred 
five-franc pieces. Crowninshield related to 
him the particulars of the murder, told him 
where the club was hid, and «aid he was 
sorry Joseph had not got the right will, for 
if he had known there was another, he 
would have got it. Joseph sent Frank 
afterwards to find and destroy the club, but 
he said he could not find it. When Joseph 
made the confession, he told the place 
where the club was concealed, and it was 
there found; it was heavy, made of hick- 
ory, twenty-two and a half inches long, of 
a smooth surface and large oval head, 
loaded with lead, and of a form adapted to 
give a mortal blow on the skull without 
breaking the skin ; the handle was suited 
for a firm grasp. Crowninshield said he 
turned it in a lathe. Joseph admitted he 
wrote the two anonymous letters. 

Crowninshield had hitherto maintained 
a stoical composure of feeling ; but when 
he was informed of Knapp's arrest, his 
knees smote beneath him, the sweat started 
out on his stern and pallid face, and he sub- 
sided upon his bunk. 

Palmer was brought to Salem in irons 
on the 3d of June, and committed to prison. 
Crowninshield saw him taken from the car- 
riage. He was put in the cell directly under 
that in which Crowninshield was kept. 
Several members of the Committee entered 
Palmer's cell to talk with him ; while they 
were talking, they heard a loud whistle, 
and, on looking up, saw that Crowninshield 
had picked away the mortar from the crev- 
ice between the blocks of the granite floor 
of his cell. After the loud whistle, he cried 
out, " Palmer ! Palmer ! " and soon let down 
a string, to which were tied a pencil and a 
slip of paper. Two lines of poetry were 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



193 



written on the paper, in order that, if Palmer 
was really there, he should make it known 
by caj>])ing the verses Palmer shrunk 
away into a corner, and was soon trans- 
ferred to another cell. He seemed to stand 
in awe of Crf)wninshield. 

On the ]2th of June a quantity of stolen 
o-oods wns found concealed in the harn of 
('rowninshield, in consequence of informa- 
tion from Palmer. 

Crowninshield, thus finding the proofs of 
his guilt and depravity thicken, on the lotli 
of June committed suicide by hanging him- 
self to the bars of his cell with a handker- 
chief. He left letters to his father and 
brother, expressing in general terms the 
viriousness of his life, and his hopelessness 
of escape from punishment. When his 
associates in guilt heard his fate, they said 
it was not unexpected by them, for they 
had often heard him say he would never 
live to submit to an ignomiinons punish- 
ment. 

A special term of the Supreme Court was 
held at Salem on the 20th of July, for the 
trial of the prisoners charged with the 
murder; it continued in session till the 20th 
of August, with a few days' intermission. 
An inilic^tment for the murder was found 
against John Francis Knapp, as principal, 
and Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. and George 
Crowninshield, as accessories. Selman and 
Chase were discharged by the Attorney- 
General. 

The principal, John Francis Knapp, was 
first put on trial. As the law then stood, 
an accessory in a murder could not be tried 
until a principal had been convicted. He 
was defended by Messrs. Franklin Dexter 
and William H. Ganliner, advocates of high 
reputation for ability and eloquence; the 
trial was long and arduous, and the wit- 
nesses numerous. His brother Joseph, who 
had made a full confession, on the govern- 
ment's promise of impunity if he would in 
good faith testify the truth, was brought 
into court, called to the stand as a witness, 
but declined to testify. To convict the 
})risoner, it was necessary for the govern- 
ment to prove that he was present, actually 
or constructively, as an aider or abettor in 
the murder. The evidence was strong that 
there was a conspiracy to commit the mur- 
der, that the prisoner was one of the con- 
spirators, that at the time of the murder he 
was in lirown Street at the rear of Mr. 
White's garden, and the jury were satisfied 
that he was in that place to aid and abet in 
the munler, ready to afford assistance, if 
necessary. He was convicted. 

Joseph J. Kiuipp, -Fr. was afterwards tried 
as an accessory before the fact, and con- 
victed. 

George Crowninshield proved an alibi, and 
was discharged. 

The execution of John Francis Knapp and 
Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. closeil the trageily. 

If Joseph, after turning State's evidence. 



13 



had not changed his mind, neither he nor 
his brother, nor any of the conspirators, 
could have been convicted; if he had testi- 
fied, and disclo.sed the whole truth, it would 
have ai)peared that John Francis Knai)p 
was in Brown Street, not to render assist- 
ance to the assassin ; but that Crownin- 
shield, when he started to commit the 
murder, requested Frank to go home and 
go to bed ; that Frank did go home, retire 
to bed, soon after arose, secretly left his 
father's house, and hastened to IJrown 
Street, to await the coming out of the as- 
sassin, in order to learn whether the deed 
was accom])lished, and all the jiarticulars. 
If Frank had not been convicted as princi- 
pal, none of the accessories could by law 
have been convicted. Joseph would not 
have been even tried, for the government 
stipulated, that, if he would be a witness 
for the State, he should go clear. 

The whole history of this occurrence is 
of romantic interest. The murder itself, 
the corpiif! delicti, was strange ; planneil with 
deliberation and' sagacity, and executed 
with firmness and vigor. While conjecture 
was baffled in ascertainingcither the motive 
or the perpetrator, it was certain that the 
assassin had acted ui)on design, and not at 
random. He must have had knowledge of 
the house, for the window had l)eeu unfas- 
tened from within. He hadentt>red stealth- 
ily, threaded his way in silence through the 
apartments, corridors, and staircases, and 
coolly given the mortal blow. To make 
assurance doubly sure, he inflicted many 
fatal stabs, " the least a death to nature," 
and stayed not his hand till he had deliber- 
atel.v felt the pulse of his victim, to make 
certain that life was extinct. 

It was strange that Crowninshield, the 
real assassin, should have been indicted and 
arrested on the testimonj- of Hatch, who 
was himself in prison, in a distant part of 
the State, at the time of the murder, and 
had no actual knowledge on the subject. 

It was very strange that J. J. Knapj), Jr. 
should have been the instriunent of bring- 
ing to light the mystery of the whole nmr- 
derous consjiirac-y ; for when he received 
from the hand of his father the threatening 
letter of Palmer, consciousness of guilt so 
confounded his faculties, that, instead of 
destroying it, he stui)idly handed it back, 
and requested his father to deliver it to tiic 
Committee of Vigil.-mce. 

It was strange that the murder should 
have been committed on a mistake in law. 
Joseph, some time previous to the murder, 
had made inquiry how Mr. White's estate 
would be distril)uted in ease he ilieil with- 
out a will, and had been erroneously tolif 
that Mrs. Heckford, his mother-in-law, the 
sole issue and re])resentalive of a deceased 
sister of Mr. White, would inherit half of 
the estate, and that the four chihlren and 
representatives of a dc'easccl l)rother of 
Mr. White, of whom the i/on. Stepiien 



194 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



White was one, would inherit the other 
half. Joseph had privately read the will, 
and knew tliat Mr. White had bequeathed 
to Mrs. Beckford much less than half. 

It was strange that the murder should 
have been committed on a mistake in fact 
also. Joseph furtively abstracted a will, 
and expected Mr. White vvould die intes- 
tate ; but, after the decease, the will, the 
last will, was found by his heirs in its 
proper place ; and it could never have been 
known, or conjectured, without the aid of 
Joseph's confession, that he had made either 
of those blunders. 

Finally, it was a strange fact that Knapp 
should, on the night following the murder, 
have watched witii the mangled corpse, and 
at the funeral followed the hearse as one of 
the chief mourners, without betraying on 
either occasion the sligiitest emotion which 
could awaken a suspicion of his guilt. 



The following note was prefixed to this 
argument in the former edition : — 

Mr. White, a highly respectable and 
wealthy citizen of Salem, about eighty 
years of age, was found, on the morning of 
the 7th of April, 1880, in his bed, mur- 
dered, under such circumstances as to cre- 
ate a strong sensation in that town and 
throughout the community. 

Richard Crowninshield, George Crownin- 
shield, Joseph J. Knapp, and John F. Knapp 
were, a few weeks after, arrested on a 
charge of having perpetrated the murder, 
and committed for trial. Joseph J. Knapp, 
soon after, under the promise of favor from 
government, made a full confession of the 
crime and the circumstances attending it. 
In a few days after this disclosure was 
made, Richard Crowninshield, who was sup- 
posed to have been the principal assassin, 
committed suicide. 

A special session of the Supreme Court 
was ordered by the legislature, for the trial 
of the prisoners, at Salem, in July. At 
that time, John F. Knapp was indicted as 
principal in the murder, and George Crown- 
inshield and Josejih J. Knapp as accessories. 

On account of the death of Chief Justice 
Parker, which occurred on the 26th of July, 
the court adjourned to Tuesday, the third 
day of August, when it proceeded in the 
trial of John F. Knapp. Joseph J. Knapp, 
being called upon, refused to testify, and the 
pledge of the government was withdrawn. 

At the request of the prosecuting officers 
of the government, Mr. Webster appeared 
as counsel, and assisted in the trial. 

Mr. Franklin Dexter addressed the jury 
on behalf of the prisoner, and was suc- 
ceeded by Mr. Webster in the following 
speech.] 

I AM little accustomed, Gentlemen, to 
the part which I am now attempting to 



perform. Hardly more than once or 
twice has it happened to me to be con- 
cerned on the side of the government in 
any criminal prosecution whatever ; and 
never, until the present occasion, in any 
case affecting life. 

But I very much regret that it should 
have been thought necessary to suggest 
to you that I am brought here to " hurry 
you against tlie law and beyond the evi- 
dence.'" I hope I have too much regard 
for justice, and too much re.spect for my 
owii character, to attempt either; and 
were I to make such attempt, I am sure 
that in this court nothing can be carried 
against the law, and that gentlemen, in- 
telligent and just as you are, are not, by 
any power, to be hurided beyond the evi- 
dence. Though I could well have wished 
to shun this occasion, I have not felt at 
liberty to withhold my professional as- 
sistance, w4ien it is supposed that I may 
be in some degree useful in investigat- 
ing and discovering the truth respecting 
this most extraordinaiy murder. It has 
seemed to be a duty incumbent on me, 
as on every other citizen, to do my best 
and my utmost to bring to light the per- 
petrators of this crime. Against the 
prisoner at the bar, as an individual, I 
cannot have the slightest prejudice. I 
would not do him the smallest injury or 
injustice. But I do not affect to be in- 
different to the discovery and the pun- 
ishment of this deep guilt. I cheerfully 
share in the opprobrium, how great so- 
ever it may be, which is cast on those 
who feel and manifest an anxious con- 
cern that all who had a part in planning, 
or a hand in executing, this deed of 
midnight assassination, may be brought 
to answer for their enormous crime at 
the bar of public justice. 

Gentlemen, it is a most extraordinary 
case. In some respects, it has hardly a 
precedent anywhere ; certainly none in 
our New England history. This bloody 
drama exhibited no suddenly excited, 
ungovernable rage. The actors in it 
were not surprised by any lion-like 
temptation spi'inging upon their vir- 
tue, and overcoming it, before resist- 
ance could begin. Nor did they do 
the deed to glut savage vengeance, or 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



195 



satiate long-settled and deadly hate. It 
was a cool, calculating, money-making 
nuirder. It was all " liire and salary, 
not revenge." It was the weighing of 
money against life; the counting out of 
so many pieces of silver against so many 
ounces of blood. 

An aged man, without an enemy in 
the world, in his own house, and in his 
own bed, is made the victim of a butch- 
erly murder, for mere pay. Truly, 
liere is a new lesson for jiainters and po- 
ets. Whoever shall hereafter draw the 
]i()rtrait of murder, if he will show it as 
it has been exhibited, where such ex- 
ample was last to have been looked for, 
in the very bosom of our New England 
society, let him not give it the grim visage 
of ^loloch, the brow knitted by revenge, 
the face black with settled hate, and the 
bloodshot eye emitting livid fires of 
malice. Let him draw, rather, a deco- 
rous, smooth-faced, bloodless demon; a 
picture in repose, rather than in action; 
not so much an example of human na- 
ture in its depravity, and in its parox- 
ysms of crime, as an infernal being, 
a fiend, in the ordinary display and de- 
velopment of his character. 

The deed was executed with a degree 
of self-possession and steadiness equal 
to the wickedness with which it was 
planned. Tlie circumstances now clearly 
in evidence spread out the whole scene 
before us. Deep sleep had fallen on 
the destined victim, and on all beneath 
his roof. A healthful old man, to wlioni 
sleep was sweet, the first sound slum- 
bers of the night held him in their soft 
but strong embrace. The assassin en- 
ters, through the window already pre- 
pared, into an unoccupied apartment. 
With noiseless foot he paces the lonely 
hall, half lighted by the moon ; he winds 
up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches 
the door of the chamber. Of this, he 
moves the lock, by soft and continued 
pressure, till it turns on its hinges with- 
out noise; and he enters, and beholds 
his victim Viefore him. The room is 
unconunonly open to the admission of 
light. The face of the innocent sleeper 
is turned from the murderer, and the 
beams of the nroon, resting on tlie gi-ay 



locks of his aged temple, show him 
where to strike. The fatal IjIow is 
given ! and the victim passes, without 
a struggle or a motion, from the repose 
of sleep to the repose of death! It is 
the assassin's purpose to make suro 
work ; and he plies the dagger, though 
it is obvious that life has been destroyed 
by the blow of the bludgeon. He even 
raises the aged arm, that he may not 
fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces 
it again over the wounds of the poniard I 
To finish the picture, he explores the 
wrist for the pulse ! He feels for it, and 
ascertains that it beats no longer ! It is 
accomplished. The deed is done. He 
retreats, retraces his steps to the win- 
dow, passes out through it a.s he came 
in, and escapes. He has done the mur- 
der. Xo eye has seen him, no ear has 
heard him. The secret is liis own, and 
it is safe ! 

Ah! Gentlemen, that was a dreadful 
mistake. Such a secret can be safe no- 
where. The whole creation of God has 
neither nook nor corner where the guilty 
can bestow it, and say it is safe. Not 
to speak of that eye which pierces 
through all disguises, and beholds eveiy 
thing as in the splendor of noon, such 
secrets of guilt are never safe from de- 
tection, even by men. True it is, gen- 
erally speaking, that " murder will out." 
True it is, that Providence hath so or- 
dained, and doth so govern things, that 
those who break the great law of Heaven 
by shedding man's blood seldom suc- 
ceed in avoiding discovery. Especially, 
in a case exciting so much attention as 
this, discovery must come, and will come, 
sooner or later. A thousand eyes turn 
at once to explore every man, every 
thing, every circumstance, connected 
with the time and place; a thousand 
ears catch every whisper ; a thou.sand ex- 
cited minds intensely dwell on the scene, 
shedding all their light, and ready to 
kindle the slightest circumstance into a 
blaze of discovery. Meantime tlie guilty 
soul cannot keep its own secret. It is 
false to itself; or ratlier it feels an irre- 
sistible impulse of conscience to be true 
to itself. It labors under its guilty pos- 
session, and knows not what to do with 



196 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



it. The human heart was not made for 
the residence of such an inhabitant. It 
finds itself preyed on by a tornient, 
whicli it dares not acknowledge to God 
or man. A vulture is devouring it, and 
it can ask no sympathy or assistance, 
either from heaven or earth. The secret 
which the murderer possesses soon comes 
to possess him; and, like the evil spirits 
of wliich we read, it overcomes him, and 
leads him whithersoever it will. He 
feels it beating at his heart, rising to 
his throat, and demanding disclosure. 
He thinks the whole world sees it in his 
face, reads it in his eyes, and_almost 
h(Wsit^_workingsinthe_TOry^ 
h is tliQug hts. It has become nis mas- 
ter. It betrays his discretion, it breaks 
down his courage, it conquers his pru- 
dence. When suspicions from without 
begin to embarrass him, and the net of 
circumstance to entangle him, the fatal 
secret struggles with still greater vip- 
lence to burst forth. It must be con- 
fessed, it will be confessed; there is no 
refuge from confession but suicide, and 
suicide is confession. 

Much has been said, on this occasion, 
of the excitement which has existed, 
and still exists, and of the extraordinary 
measure* taken to discover and punish 
the guilty. No doubt there has been, 
and is, much excitement, and strange 
indeed it would be had it been other- 
Avise. Should not all the peaceable and 
well-disposed naturally feel concerned, 
and naturally exert themselves to bring- 
to punishment the authors of this secret 
assassination? Was it a thing to be 
slept upon or forgotten? Did you, Gen- 
tlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your 
beds after this murder as before? Was 
it not a case for rewards, for meetings, 
for committees, for the united efforts of 
all the good, to find out a band of murder- 
ous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, 
and to bring them to the bar of justice 
and law? If this be excitement, is it an 
unnatural or an improper excitement? 

It seems to me, Gentlemen, that there 
are ajipearances of another feeling, of a 
very different nature and character ; not 
very extensive, I would hope, but still 
there is too much evidence of its exist- 



ence. Such is human nature, that some 
persons lose their abhorrence of crime 
in their admiration of its magnificent 
exhibitions. Ordinary vice is repro- 
bated by them, but extraordinary guilt, 
exquisite wickedness, the high flights 
and poetry of crime, seize on the imagi- 
nation, and lead them to forget the 
depths of the guilt, in admiration of 
the excellence of the performance, or 
the unequalled atrocity of the purpose. 
There are those in our day who have 
made great use of this infirmity of our 
nature, and by means of it done infinite 
injury to the cause of good morals. 
They have affected not only the taste, 
but I fear also the principles, of the 
young, the heedless, and the imagina- 
tive, by the exhibition of interesting 
and beautiful monsters. They render 
depravity attractive, sometimes by the 
polish of its manners, and sometimes 
by its very extravagance ; and study to 
show off crime under all the advantages 
of cleverness and dexterity. Gentle- 
men, this is an extraordinary murder, 
but it is still a murder. We are not to 
lose ourselves in wonder at its origin, or 
in gazing on its cool and skilful execu- 
tion. We are to detect and to punish 
it; and while we proceed with caution 
against the prisoner, and are to be sure 
that we do not visit on his head the 
offences of others, we are yet to con- 
sider that we are dealing with a case of 
most atrocious crime, which has not the 
slightest circumstance about it to soften 
its enormity. It is murder; deliberate, 
concerted, malicious murder. 

Although the interest of this case may 
have diminished by the repeated inves- 
tigation of the facts; still, the addi- 
tional labor which it imposes upon all 
concerned is not to be regretted, if it 
should result in removing all doubts of 
the guilt of the prisoner. 

The learned counsel for the prisoner 
has said truly, that it is your individ- 
ual duty to judge the pi'isoner; that 
it is your individual duty to determine 
his guilt or innocence; and that you 
are to weigh the testimony with can- 
dor and fairness. But much at the 
same time has been said, which, al- 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



197 



though it would seem to have no dis- 
tinct bearing on the trial, cannot be 
passed over without some notice. 

A tone of complaint so peculiar has 
been indulged, as would almost lead us 
to doiibt whether the prisoner at the 
bar, or the managers of this prosecu- 
tion, are now on trial. Gi-eat pains 
have been taken to complain of the 
manner of the prosecution. We hear 
of getting up a case ; of setting in mo- 
tion trains of machinery; of foul testi- 
mony; of combinations to overwhelm 
the prisoner; of private prosecutors; 
that the prisoner is hunted, persecuted, 
driven to his trial; that everybody is 
against him; and various other com- 
pkiints, as if those who would bring to 
punishment the authors of this murder 
were almost as bad as they who com- 
mitted it. 

In the course of my whole life, I have 
never heard before so much said about 
the particular counsel who happen to be 
employed; as if it were extraordinary 
that other counsel tJian the usual offi- 
cers of the government should assist in 
the management of a case on the part 
of the government. In one of the last 
criminal trials in this county, that of 
Jackman for the " Goodridge robbery " 
(so called), I remember that the learned 
head of the Suffolk Baf, Mr. Prescott, 
came down in aid of the officers of the 
government. This was regarded as 
neither strange nor improper. The 
counsel for the prisoner, in that case, 
contented themselves with answering 
his arguments, as far as they were able, 
instead of carping at his presence. 

Complaint is made that rewards were 
offered, in this case, and temptations 
held out to obtain testimony. Are not 
rewards always offered, when great and 
secret offences are committed? Rewards 
were offered in the case to which I have 
alluded ; and every other means taken to 
discover the offenders, that ingenuity 
or the most persevering vigilance could 
suggest. The learned counsel have suf- 
fered their zeal to lead them into a strain 
of complaint at the manner in which 
the perpetrators of this crime were de- 
tected, almost indicating that they re- 



gard it as a positive injury to them to 
have found out their guilt. Since no 
man witnessed it, since they do not now 
confess it, attempts to discover it are 
half esteemed as officious intermeddling 
and impertinent inquiry. 

It is said, tliat here even a Committee 
of Vigilance was appointed. This is a 
subject of reiterated remark. This com- 
mittee are pointed at, as though tliey 
had been officiously intermeddling with 
the administration of justice. They 
are said to have been "laboring for 
months " against the prisoner. Gentle- 
men, what must we do in such a case? 
Are people to be dumb and still, through 
fear of overdoing? Is it come to this, 
that an effort cannot be made, a hand 
cannot be lifted, to discover the guilty, 
witliout its being said there is a combi- 
nation to overwhelm innocence? Has 
the community lost all moral sense? 
Certainly, a community that would not 
be roused to action upon an occasion 
such as this was, a community which 
should not deny sleep to their eyes, and 
slumber to their eyelids, till they had 
exhausted all the means of discovery 
and detection, must indeed be lost to 
all moral sense, and would scarcely de- 
serve protection from tlie laws. The 
learned counsel have endeavored to per- 
suade you, that there exists a prejudice 
against the persons accused of this nmr- 
der. They would have you understand 
that it is not confined to this vicinity 
alone; but that even the legislature 
have caught this spirit. That through 
the procurement of the gentleman here 
styled private prosecutor, who is a mem- 
ber of the Senate, a special session of 
this court was appointed for the trial 
of these offenders. That the ordinary 
movements of the wheels of justice were 
too slow for the purposes devised. But 
does not everybody see and know, that 
it was matter of absolute necessity to 
have a special session of the court? 
When or how could the prisoners have 
been tried without a special session? 
In the ordinary arrangement of the 
courts, but one week in a year is al- 
lotted for tlie whole court to sit in this 
county. Ill the trial of all capital of- 



198 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPPI WHITE. 



fences a majority of the court, at least, 
is required to be present. In the trial 
of the present case alone, three weeks 
have already been taken up. Without 
such special session, then, three years 
would not have been sufficient for the 
purpose. It is answer sufficient to all 
comi^laints on this subject to say, that 
the Taw was dravm by the late Chief 
Justice himself, 1 to enable the court to 
accomplish its duties, and to afford the 
persons accused an opportunity for trial 
without delay. 

Again, it is said that it was not tliousiht 
of making Francis Knapp, the prisoner 
at the bar, a principal till after the 
death of Richai'd Crowninshield, Jr.; 
that the present indictment is an after- 
thought; that " testimony was got up" 
for the occasion. It is not so. There 
is no authority for this suggestion. The 
case of the Kiiapps had not then been 
before the grand jury. Tlie officers of 
the government did not know what the 
testimony would be against tiiem. They 
could not, thei-efore, have determined 
what course they should pursue. They 
intended to arraign all as principals who 
should appear to have been principals, 
and all as accessories who should appear 
to have been accessories. All this could 
be known only when the evidence should 
be produced. 

But the learned counsel for the de- 
fendant take a somewhat loftier fliglit 
still. They are more concerned, they 
assure us, for tlie law itself, than even 
for their client. Your decision in this 
case, they say, will stand as a precedent. 
Gentlemen, we hope it will. We hope it 
will be a precedent both of candor and 
intelligence, of fairness and of firmness; 
a precedent of good sense and honest 
purpose pursuing their investigation dis- 
creetly, rejecting loose generalities, ex- 
ploring all the circumstances, weighing 
each, in search of truth, and embracing 
and declaring the truth when found. 

It is said, that "laws are made, not 
for the punishment of the guilty, but for 
the protection of the innocent." This is 
not quite accurate, perhaps, but if so, we 
hope they will be so administered as to 
1 Chief Justice Parker. 



give that protection. But who are the 
innocent whom the law would protect? 
Gentlemen, Joseph White was innocent. 
They are innocent who, having lived in 
the fear of God through the day, wish to 
sleep in his peace through the night, in 
their own beds. The law is established 
that those who live quietly may sleep 
quietly; that they who do no harm may 
feel none. The gentleman can think of 
none that are innocent except the pris- 
oner at the bar, not yet convicted. Is 
a proved conspirator to murder inno- 
cent? Are the Crowninshields and the 
Knapps innocent? What is innocence? 
How deep stained with blood, how reck- 
less in crime, how deep in depravity may 
it be, and yet retain innocence? The 
law is made, if we would speak with en- 
tire accuracy, to protect the innocent by 
punishing the guilty. But there are those 
innocent out of a court, as well as in ; I 
innocent citizens not suspected of crime, 
as well as innocent prisoners at the bar. j 

The criminal law is not founded in a 
principle of vengeance. It does not pun- 
ish that it may inflict suffering. The 
humanity of the law feels and regrets 
every pain it causes, every hour of re- 
straint it imposes, and more deeply still 
every life it forfeits. But it uses evil as 
the means of preventing greater evil. 
It seeks to deter from crime by the ex- 
ample of punishment. Tliis is its true, 
and only true main object. It restrains 
the libei'ty of the few offenders, that 
the many who do not offend may enjoy 
their liberty. It takes the life of the 
murderer, that other murders may not 
be committed. The law might open the 
jails, and at once set free all persons ac- 
cused of offences, and it ought to do so 
if it could be made certain that no other 
offences would hereafter be committed; 
because it punishes, not to satisfy any 
desire to inflict pain, but simply to pre- 
vent the repetition of crimes. When 
the guilty, therefore, are not punished, 
the law has so far failed of its purpose; 
the safety of the innocent is so far en- 
dangered. Every unpunished murder 
takes away something from the security 
of every man's life. Whenever a jury, 
through whimsical and ill-founded scru- 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



199 



pies, suffer the guilty to escape, they 
make themselves answerable for the 
augmented danger of the innocent. 

We wish nothing to be strained aj^ainst 
this defendant. Why, then, all this 
alarm? Why all this complaint against 
the manner in which the crime is dis- 
covered? The prisoner's counsel catch 
at supposed flaws of evidence, or bad 
character of witnesses, witliout meeting 
the case. Do they mean to deny the 
conspiracj'? Do they mean to deny that 
the two Crowninshields and the two 
Knapps were conspirators? Why do they 
rail against Palmer, while they do not 
disprove, and hardly dispute, the truth 
of any one fact sworn to by him? In- 
stead of this, it is made matter of senti- 
mentality that Palmer has been prevailed 
upon to betray his bosom companions 
and to violate the sanctity of friendship. 
Again I ask. Why do they not meet the 
case? If the fact is out, why not meet 
it? Do they mean to deny that Captain 
"White is dead? One would have almost 
supposed even that, from some remarks 
that have been made. Do they mean to 
deny the conspiracy ? Or, admitting a 
conspiracy, do they mean to deny only 
that Frank Knapp, the prisoner at the 
bar, was abetting in the mui-der, being- 
present, and so deny that he was a prin- 
cipal? If a conspu'acy is proved, it bears 
closely upon every subsequent subject of 
inquiry. Why do they not come to the 
fact? Here the defence is wholly in- 
distinct. The counsel neither take the 
ground, nor abandon it. They neither 
tiy, nor light. They hover. But they 
must come to a closer mode of con- 
test. They must meet the facts, and 
either deny or admit them. Had the 
prisoner at the bar, then, a knowledge 
of this conspiracy or not? This is the 
question. Instead of laying out their 
strength in complaining of the manner 
in which the deed is discovered, of the 
extraordinary pains taken to bring the 
prisoner's guilt to light, w'ould it not 
be better to show thei-e was no guilt? 
Would it not be better to show his inno- 
cence? They say, and they complain, that 
the community feel a great desire that 
he should be punished for his crimes. 



Would it not be better to convince you 
that he has committed no crime? 

Gentlemen, let us now come to the 
case. Your first inquiry, on the evi- 
dence, will be. Was Captain White 
murdered in pursuance of a conspir- 
acy, and was the defendant one of this 
conspiracy? If so, the second inquiry 
is. Was he so connected with tlie mur- 
der itself as that he is liable to be con- 
victed as a principal ? The defendant is 
indicted as a principal. If not guilty as 
such, you cannot convict him. The in- 
dictment contains three distinct classes 
of counts. In the first, he is charged as 
having done the deed with his own 
hand; in the second, as an aider and 
abettor to liichard Crowninshield, Jr., 
who did the deed; in the third, as an 
aider and abettor to some person un- 
knowm. If you believe him guilty ou 
either of these counts, or in either of 
these ways, you must convict him. 

It may be proper to say, as a prelimi- 
nary remark, that there are two extraor- 
dinary circumstances attending tliis trial. 
One is, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr., 
the supposed immediate perpetrator of 
the murder, since his arrest, has com- 
mitted suicide. He has gone to answer 
before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. 
The other is, that Joseph Knapp, the 
supposed originator and planner of the 
murder, having once made a full dis- 
closure of the facts, under a promise of 
indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a 
witness. jSTotwithstanding his dLsclos- 
ure and his promise of indemnity, he 
now refuses to testify. He chooses to 
return to his original state, and now 
stands answerable himself, when the 
time shall come for his trial. These cir- 
cumstances it is fit you should remem- 
ber, in your investigation of the case. 

Your decision may affect more than 
the life of this defendant. If he be not 
convicted as principal, no one can be. 
Nor can any one be convicted of a par- 
ticipation in the crime h.s accessory. 
The Knapps and George Crowninshield 
will be again on the conununity. This 
shows the importance of the duty you 
have to perform, anil serves to remind 
you of the care and wisdom necessary to 



200 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



be exercised in its performance. But 
certainly these considerations do not 
render the prisoner's guilt any clearer, 
nor enhance the weight of the evidence 
against him. No one desires you to re- 
gard consequences in that light. No one 
wishes any thing to be strained, or too far 
pressed against the prisoner. Still, it is 
fit you should see the full importance of 
the duty which devolves upon you. 

And now. Gentlemen, in examining 
this evidence, let us begin at the begin- 
ning, and see first what we know in- 
dependent of the disputed testimony. 
This is a case of circmnstantial evidence. 
And these circumstances, we think, are 
full and satisfactory. The case mainly 
depends upon them, and it is common 
that offences of this kind must be proved 
in this way. Midnight assassins take 
no witnesses. The evidence of the facts 
relied on has been somewhat sneeringiy 
denominated, by the learned counsel, 
"circumstantial stuff, '' but it is not 
such stuff as dreams are made of. Why 
does he not rend this stuff? AVlay does 
he not scatter it to tlie winds? He dis- 
misses it a little too summarily. It shall 
be my business to examine this stuff, 
and try its cohesion. 

The letter from Palmer at Belfast, is 
that no more than flimsy stuff? 

The fabricated letters from Knapp to 
the committee and to JSlr. White, are 
they nothing but stuff? 

The circumstance, that the house- 
keeper was away at the time the murder 
was committed, as it was agreed she 
would be, is that, too, a useless piece of 
the same stuff? 

The facts, that the key of the cham- 
ber door was taken out and secreted; 
that the window was unbarred and un- 
bolted ; are these to be so slightly and so 
easily disposed of? 

It is necessary. Gentlemen, to settle 
now, at the commencement, the great 
question of a conspiracy. If there was 
none, or the defendant was not a party, 
then there is no evidence here to convict 
him. If there was a conspiracy, and 
he is proved to have been a party, then 
these two facts have a strong bearing on 
others, and all the great points of iu- 



quiiy. The defendant's counsel take no 
distinct ground, as I have already said, 
on this point, either to admit or to deny. 
They choose to confine themselves to a 
hypothetical mode of speech. They say, 
supposing there was a conspiracy, non 
sequitur that the prisoner is guilty as 
principal. Be it so. But still, if there 
was a conspiracy, and if he was a con- 
spirator, and helped to plan the murder, 
this may shed much light on the evidence 
which goes to charge him with the exe- 
cution of that plan. 

We mean to make out the conspiracy ; 
and that the defendant was a party to it; 
and then to draw all just inferences from 
these facts. 

Let me ask your attention, then, in the 
first place, to those appearances, on the 
morning after the murder, which have a 
tendency to show that it was done in pur- 
suance of a preconcerted plan of opera- 
tion. What are they? A man was found 
murdered in his bed. No stranger had 
done the deed, no one unacquainted with 
the house had done it. It was apparent 
that somebody within had opened, and 
that somebody without had entered. 
There had obviously and certainly been 
concert and co-operation. The inmates 
of the house were not alarmed when the 
murder was perpetrated. The assassin 
had entered without any riot or any A'io- 
lence. He had found the way prepared 
before him. The house had been pre- 
viously opened. The window was un- 
barred from within, and its fastening 
unscrewed. There was a lock on the 
door of the chamber in which Mr. White 
slept, but the key was gone. It had been 
taken away and secreted. The footsteps 
of the murderer were visible, out-doors, 
tending toward the window. The plank 
by which he entered the window still re- 
mained. The road he pursued had been 
thus prepared for him. The victim was 
slain, and the murderer had escaped. 
Every thing indicated that somebody 
within had co-operated with somebody 
without. Every thing proclaimed that 
some of the inmates, or somebody hav- 
ing access to the house, had had a hand 
in the murder. On the face of the cir- 
cumstances, it was apparent, therefore, 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPn WHITE. 



201 



that this was a premeditated, concerted 
murder ; that there had been a conspiracy 
to commit it. Who, then, were the con- 
spirators? If not now found out, we 
are still groping in the dark, and the 
whole tragedy is still a mystery. 

If the Knapps and the Crowninshields 
were not the conspirators in this nuu'der, 
then there is a whole set of conspirators 
not yet discovered. Because, indepen- 
dent of the testimony of Palmer and 
Leighton, independent of all disputed 
evidence, we know, fi'om uncontroverted 
facts, that this murder was, and must 
have been, the result of concert and co- 
operation between two or more. We 
know it was not done without plan and 
deliberation; we see, that whoever en- 
tered the house, to strike the blow, was 
favored and aided by some one who had 
been previously in the house, without 
suspicion, and who had prepared the 
"way. This is concert, this is co-operation, 
this is conspiracy. If the Knapps and 
the Crowninshields, then, were not the 
conspirators, who were? Joseph Knapp 
had a motive to desire the death of ]\Ir. 
White, and that motive has been shown. 

He was connected by marriage with 
the family of ISIr. White. His wife was 
the daughter of Mrs. Beckfoi'd, who 
was the only child of a sister of the 
deceased. The deceased was more than 
eighty years old, and had no children. 
His only heirs were nephews and nieces. 
He was supposed to be possessed of a 
very large fortune, which would have 
descended, by law, to his several neph- 
ews and nieces in equal shares; or, if 
there was a will, then according to the 
will. But as he had but two branches 
of heirs, the children of his brother, 
Henry White, and of Mrs. Beckford, 
each of these branches, according to the 
common idea, would have shared one 
half of his property. 

This popular idea is not legally cor- 
rect. But it is common, and very prob- 
ably was entertained by the parties. 
According to this idea, ^Irs. Beckford, 
on Mr. ^Vhite's death without a will, 
would have been entitled to one half of 
his ample fortune; and Joseph Knapp 
had married one of her three children. 



There was a will, and this will gave the 
bulk of the property to others ; and we 
learn from Palmer that one part of the 
design was to destroy the will before the 
murder was committed. There had been 
a previous will, and that previous will 
was known or believed to have been 
more favoralile than the other to the 
Beckford family. So that, by destroy- 
ing the last will, and destroying the life 
of the testator at the same time, either 
the first and more favorable will would 
be set up, or the deceased would have 
no will, which would be, as was sup- 
posed, still more favorable. But the 
conspirators not having succeeded in 
obtaining and destroying tlie last will, 
though they accomjijished the nuirder, 
that will being found in existence and 
safe, and that will bequeathing the mass 
of the property to others, it seemed at 
the time impossible for Jose])h Knapp, 
as for any one else, indeed, but the prin- 
cipal devisee, to have any motive which 
should lead to the murder. The key 
which unlocks the whole mystery is the 
knowledge of the intention of the con- 
spirators to steal the will. This is de- 
rived from Palmer, and it explains all. 
It solves the whole marvel. It shows 
the motive which actuated those, against 
whom there is much evidence, but who, 
without the knowledge of this intention, 
were not seen to have had a motive. 
This intention is proved, as I have said, 
by Palmer; and it is so congruous with 
all the rest of the case, it agrees so well 
with all facts and circumstances, that 
no man could well withhold his belief, 
though the facts were stated by a still 
less credible witness. If one desirous 
of opening a lock turns over and tries 
a bunch of keys till he finds one that 
will o]wn it, he naturally sujipo.ses he 
has found tlie key of thul lock. So, in 
explaining circumstances of evidence 
whiih an; apparently irreconcilable or 
unaccountable, if a fact be suggested 
which at once accounts for all, and rec- 
onciles all, by whomsoever it may be 
stated, it is still dilHcult not to believe 
that such fact is the true fact belonging 
|to the case. In this resjiect. Palmer's 
testimony is singularly confirmed. It it 



202 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



were false, his ingenuity could not fur- 
nish us such clear exposition of strange 
appearing circumstances. Some truth 
not before known can alone do that. 

When we look back, then, to the 
state of things immediately on the dis- 
covery of the murder, we see that sus- 
picion would naturally turn at once, not 
to the heirs at law, but to those princi- 
pally benefited by the will. They, and 
they alone, would be supposed or seem 
to have a direct object for wishing Mr. 
White's life to be terminated. And, 
strange as it may seem, we find counsel 
now insisting, that, if no apology, it is 
yet mitigation of the atrocity of the 
Knaj^ps' conduct in attempting to charge 
this foul murder on Mr. White, the 
nephew and principal devisee, that pub- 
lic suspicion was already so directed! 
As if assassination of character were 
excusable in proportion as circumstances 
may render it easy. Their endeavors, 
when they knew they were suspected 
themselves, to fix the charge on others, 
by foul means and by falsehood, are fair 
and strong proof of their own guilt. 
But more of that hereafter. 

The counsel say that they might safely 
admit that Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
was the perpetrator of this murder. 

But how could they safely admit that? 
If that were admitted, every thing else 
would follow. For why should Richard 
Crowninshield, Jr. kill Mr. White? He 
was not his heir, nor his devisee ; nor 
was he his enemy. AVhat could be his 
motive? If Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
killed Mr. White, he did it at some 
one's procurement who himself had a 
motive. And who, having any motive, 
is shown to have had any intercourse 
with Richard Crowninshield, Jr., but 
Joseph Ivnapp, and tliis jM'incipally 
through tlie agency of the prisoner at 
the bar? It is the infirmity, the dis- 
tressing difficulty of the prisoner's case, 
that his counsel cannot and dare not 
admit what they yet cannot disprove, 
and what all must believe. He who be- 
lieves, on this evidence, that Rich- 
ard Crowninshield, Jr. was the im- 
mediate murderer, cannot doubt that 
both the Knapps were conspirators 



in that murder. The counsel, there- 
fore, are wrong, I think, in saying 
they might safely admit tliis. The ad- 
mission of so important and so connect- 
ed a fact would render it impossible to 
contend further against the proof of the 
entire conspiracy, as we state it. 

What, then, was this conspiracy? J. 
J. Knapp, Jr., desirous of destroying 
the will, and of taking the life of the 
deceased, hired a ruffian, who, with the 
aid of other ruffians, was to enter the 
house, and nnirder him in his bed. 

As far back as January this conspiracy 
began. Endicott testifies to a conver- 
sation with J. J. Knapp at that time, in 
which Knapp told hira that Captain 
White had made a will, and given the 
principal part of his property to Stephen 
White. When asked how he knew, he 
said, "Black and white don't lie." 
When asked if the will was not locked 
up, he said, " There is such a thing as 
two keys to the same lock." And 
speaking of the then late illness of Cap- 
tain White, he said, that Stephen White 
would not have been sent for if he had 
been there. 

Hence it appears, that as early as Jan- 
uary Knapp had a knowledge of the 
will, and that he had access to it by 
means of false keys. This knowledge 
of the will, and an intent to destroy it, 
appear also from Palmer's tsstimony, a 
fact disclosed to him by the other con- 
spirators. He says that he was informed 
of this by the Crowninshields on the 
2d of April. But then it is said, that 
Palmer is not to be credited; that by his 
own confession he is a felon ; that he has 
been in the State prison in Maine; and, 
above all, that he was intimately associ- 
ated with these conspirators themselves. 
Let us admit these facts. Let us admit 
him to be as bad as they would represent 
him to be; still, in law, he is a compe- 
tent witness. How else are the secret 
designs of the wicked to be proved, but 
by their wicked companions, to whom 
they have disclosed them ? The govern- 
ment does not select its witnesses. The 
conspirators themselves have chosen 
Palmer. He was the confidant of the 
prisoners. The fact, however, does not 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITR. 



203 



depend on liis testimony alone. It is 
corroborated by other proof; and, taken 
in connection with the otiier circiinistan- 
ces, it has strong probability. In regard 
to the testimony of Palmer, generally, it 
may be said that it is less contradicted, 
in all parts of it, either by himself or 
others, than that of any otiier material 
witne.ss, and that every thing he has told 
is corroborated by other evidence, so far 
as it is susce[)tible of contirmation. An 
attempt has been made to impair his 
testimony, as to his being at the Half- 
way House on the night of the murder; 
you have seen with what success. Mr. 
Babb is called to contradict him. You 
have seen how little he knows, and even 
that not certahdy; for he himself is 
proved to have been in an error by sup- 
posing Palmer to have been at the Half- 
way House on the evening of the 9th of 
April. At that time he is proved to 
have been at Dustin's, in Danvers. If, 
then. Palmer, bad as he is, has disclosed 
the secrets of the conspiracy, and has 
told the trnth, there is no reason why it 
should not be believed. Truth is truth, 
tonie whence it may. 
t/TThe facts show that this murder had 
been long in agitation; that it was not 
a new proposition on the 2d of April; 
tliat it had been contemplated for five or 
six weeks. Richard Crowninshield was 
at Wenham in the latter part of March, 
as testified by Starrett. Frank Knapp 
was at Danvers in the latter part of 
February, as testified by Allen. Rich- 
ard Crowninshield inquired whether 
Captain Knapp was about home, when 
at Wenham. The probability is, that 
they would open the case to Palmer 
as a new project. There are other 
circumstances that show it to have 
been some weeks in agitation. Palm- 
er's testimony as to the transaction 
on the 2d of April is corroborated by 
Allen, and by Osborn's books. He 
says tliat Frank Knapp came there in 
the afternoon, and again in the even- 
ing. So the book shows. He says 
that Captain White had gone out to his 
farm on that day. So others prove. 
How could this fact, or these facts, have 
been known to Palmer, unless Frank 



Knai)p had brought the knowledge? 
And was it not the special object of this 
visit to give iufurmation of this fact, 
tliat they might meet him and execute 
their purpose on his return from his 
farm? The letter of Palmer, written at 
Belfast, bears intrinsic marks of genu- 
ineness. It was mailed at Belfast, May 
13th. It states facts that hecouM not 
have known, unless his testimony be 
true. This letter was not an after- 
thought; it is a genuine narrative. In 
fact, it says, " I know the business your 
brother Frank was transacting on the 
2d of April." How could he have pos- 
sibly known this, unless he had been 
there ? The " one thousand dollars that 
was to be paid," — where could he have 
obtained this knowledgeV The testi- 
mony of Kndicott, of Palmer, and tiiese 
facts, are to be taken together; and 
they most clearly show that the death 
of Captain White was causeil by some- 
body interested in putting an end to 
his life. 

As to the testimony of Leighton, as 
far as manner of testifying goes, he is a 
bad witness; but it does not follow from 
this that he is not to be believed. There 
are some strange things about him. It 
is strange, tliat he should make up a story 
against Captain Knapp, the person with 
whom he lived; that he never volunta- 
rily told any thing : all that lie has said 
was screwed out of him. But the story 
could not have been invented by him; 
his character for truth is unimpeached ; 
and he intimated to another witness, 
soon after the murder happened, that 
he knew s(miething he .shoidd not tell. 
There is not the least contradiction in 
his testimony, though he gives a poor 
account of w ithholding it. He says that 
he was extremely hollirreil by those wlio 
questioned him. In the main story that 
he relates, he is entirely consistent with 
himself. Some things are for him, and 
some against him. Examine the in- 
trinsic probability of what he says. See 
if some allowance is not to be made 
for him, on account of his ignorance of 
things of this kind. It is said to be ex- 
traordinary, that he shoul.l have heard 
just so much of the conversation, aud 



204 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



no more ; that he should have heard just 
what was necessary to be proved, and 
nothing else. Admit that this is ex- 
traordinary; still, tliis does not prove it 
untrue. It is extraordinary that you 
twelve gentlemen should be called upon, 
out of all the men in the county, to 
decide this case ; no one could have 
foretold this three weeks since. It is 
extraordinary that the first clew to this 
conspiracy should have been derived 
from information given by the father of 
the prisoner at the bar. And in every 
case that comes to trial there are many 
things extraordinary. The murder itself 
is a most extraordinary one ; but still we 
do not doubt its reality. 

It is argued, that this conversation 
between Joseph and Frank could not 
have been as Leighton has testified, be- 
cause they had been together for several 
hours before; this subject must have 
been uppermost in their minds, whereas 
this appears to have been the commence- 
ment of their conversation upon it. Now 
this depends altogether upon the tone 
and manner of the expression ; upon the 
particular word in the sentence which 
was emphatically spoken. If he had 
said, " When did you see Dick, Frank V " 
this would not seem to be the beginning 
of the conversation. With what em- 
phasis it was uttered, it is not possible 
to learn; and therefore nothing can be 
made of this argument. If this boy's 
testimony stood alone, it should be re- 
ceived with caution. And the same may 
be said of the testimony of Palmer. 
But they do not stand alone. They fur- 
nish a clew to numerous other circum- 
stances, which, when known, mutually 
confirm what would have been received 
with caution without such corrobora- 
tion. How could Leighton have made up 
this conversation? " When did you see 
Dick?" "I saw him this morning." 

iill the old 
"Tell him, 
if he don't do it soon, I won't pay 
him." Here is a vast amount in few 
words. Had he wit enough to invent 
this? Thei'e is nothing so powerful as 
truth; and often nothing so strange. 
It is not even suggested that the stoiy 



" When is he going to 
man? " "I don't know." 



was made for him. There is noth- 
ing so extraordinary in the whole mat- 
ter, as it would have been for this 
ignorant country boy to invent this 
story. 

The acts of the parties themselves fur- 
nish strong presumption of their guilt. 
AVhat was done on the receipt of the 
letter from Maine? This letter was 
signed by Charles Grant, Jr., a i^erson 
not known to either of the Knapps, nor 
was it known to them that any other 
person beside the Crowninshields knew 
of the conspiracy. This letter, by the 
accidental omission of the word Jr. , fell 
into the hands of the father, when in- 
tended for the son. The father carried 
it to Wenham, where both the sons were. 
They both read it. Fix your eye stead- 
ily on this part of the circumstantial stuff 
which is in the case, and see what can 
be made of it. This was shown to the 
two brothers on Saturday, the loth of 
May. Neither of them knew Palmer. 
And if they had known him, they could 
not have known him to have been the 
writer of this letter. It was mysterious 
to them how any one at BeKast coidd 
have had knowledge of this affair. Their 
conscious guilt prevented due circum- 
spection. They did not see the bearing 
of its publication. They advised their 
father to carry it to the Committee of 
Vigilance, and it was so carried. On, 
the Sunday following, Joseph began to 
think there might be something in it. 
Perhaps, in the mean time, he had seen 
one of the Crowninshields. He was 
apprehensive that they might be sns- 
jiected; he was anxious to turn atten- 
tion from their family. What course 
did he adopt to effect this? He ad- 
dressed one letter, with a false name, 
to Mr. Wliite, and another to the Com- 
mittee; and to complete the climax of 
his folly, he signed the letter addressed 
to the Committee, "Grant," the same 
name as that which was signed to the 
letter received from Belfast. It was in 
the knowledge of the Committee, that 
no person but the Knapps had seen this 
letter from Belfast; and that no other 
person knew its signature. It therefore 
must have been irresistibly plain to them 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



205 



that one of the Knapps was the writer 
of the letter received by tiie Commit- 
tee, charging the murder on Mr. White. 
Add to tliis tlie fact of its having been 
dated at Lynn, and mailed at Salem 
four days after it was dated, and who 
could doubt respecting itV Have you 
ever read or known of folly equal to 
this? Can you conceive of crime more 
odious and abominable? Merely to ex- 
plain the apparent mysteries of the letter 
from Palmer, tliey excite tlie basest sus- 
picions against a man, whom, if they 
were innocent, they had no reason to 
believe guilty; and whom, if they were 
guilty, they most certainly knew to be 
innocent. Could they have adopted a 
more direct method of exposing their 
own infamy? The letter to the Com- 
mittee has intrinsic marks of a knowl- 
edge of this transaction. It tells the 
time and the manner in which the murder 
was committed. Every line speaks the 
wi-iter's condemnation. In attempting 
to divert attention from his family, and 
to charge the guilt upon another, he in- 
delibly fixes it upon himself. 

Joseph Knapp requested Allen to put 
these letters into the post-office, because, 
said he, " I wish to nip tliis silly affair 
in the bud." If this were not the order 
of an overruling Providence, I should 
say that it was the silliest piece of folly 
that was ever practised. INIark the des- 
tiny of crime. It is ever obliged to re- 
sort to sucli subtorf ages ; it trembles in 
the broad liglit; it betrays itself in seek- 
ing concealment. He alone walks safely 
who walks uprightly. Who for a mo- 
ment can read these letters and doubt of 
Josei>h Knapp's guilt? The constitu- 
tion of nature is made to inform against 
him. There is no corner dark enough 
to conceal him. Tliere is no turnpike- 
road broad enough or smooth enough 
for a man so guilty to walk in without 
stumbling. Every step proclaims liis 
secret to every passenger. His own acts 
come out to fix his guilt. In attempting 
to charge anotlier with his own crime, 
he writes liis own confession. To do 
away the effect of Palmer's letter, signed 
Grant, he writes a letter himself and 
affixes to it the name of Grant. He 



writes in a disguised hand; liut liuw 
could it ha])pen that the same Grant 
should be in Salem that was at Belfast? 
This has brought the whole thing out. 
Evidently he did it, because he has 
adopted the same style. Evidently lie 
did it, because he speaks of the price of 
blood, and of other circumstances con- 
nected with the murder, that no one but 
a conspirator could have known. 

Palmer says he made a visit to the 
Crowninshields, on the 9th of April. 
George then asked him whether ho had 
heard of the murder, llichard inquired 
whether he had heard the music at Salem. 
They said that they were suspected, that 
a connnittee had been ajipointed to search 
houses ; and that they had melted up the 
dagger, the day after the murder, be- 
cause it would be a suspicious circum- 
stance to liave it found in their possession. 
Xow this connnittee was not appointed, 
in fact, until Friday evening. But this 
proves nothing against Palmer; it does 
not prove that George did not tell him 
so; it oidy proves that he gave a false 
reason for a fact. Tiiey liad heard that 
they were suspected; how could they 
have heard this, unless it were from the 
whisperings of their own consciences? 
Surely this rumor was not then pub- 
lic. 

About the 27th of April, another at- 
tempt was made by the Knapps to give 
a direction to public suspicion. They re- 
ported themselves to have been robbed, 
in passing from Salem to Wenham, near 
Wenham Pond. They came to Salem 
and stated the particulars of the adven- 
ture. They described persons, tlieir 
dress, size, and appearance, who had 
been suspected of tlie nuirder. They 
would have it uiulerstood that the com- 
munity was infested by a band of ruf- 
fians, and that they themselves were the 
particular objects of their vengeance. 
Now this turns out to be all littitious, 
all false. Can you conceive of any tiling 
more enormous, any wickeilness greater, 
than the circulation of such reports? 
than the allegation of crimes, if com- 
mitted, ca])ital? If no sucii crime liad 
been committed, then it reacts with 
double force upon themselves, and goe» 



206 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



very far to show their guilt. How did 
they conduct themselves on this occa- 
sion? Did they make hue and cry? 
Did they give information that they 
had been assaulted that night at Wen- 
ham? No such thing. They rested 
quietly that night; they waited to be 
called on for the particulars of their ad- 
venture ; they made no attempt to arrest 
the offenders; this was not their object. 
They were content to fill the thousand 
mouths of rumor, to spread abroad false 
reports, to divert the attention of the 
p'lbMc from themselves; for they 
thought every man suspected them, be- 
cause they knew they ought to be sus- 
pected. 

- The manner in which the compensa- 
tion for this murder was paid is a cir- 
cumstance worthy of consideration. By 
examining the facts and dates, it will 
satisfactorily appear that Joseph Knapp 
paid a sum of money to Richard Crown- 
inshield, in five-franc pieces, on the 2-ith 
of April. On the 21st of April, Joseph 
Knapp received five hundred five-franc 
pieces, as the proceeds of an adventure 
at sea. The remainder of this species 
of currency that came home in the ves- 
sel was deposited in a bank at Salem. 
On Saturday, the 24th of April, Frank 
and Richard rode to Wenham. They 
were there with Joseph an hour or 
more, and appeared to be negotiating 
private business. Richard continued 
in the chaise ; Joseph came to the 
chaise and conversed with him. These 
facts are proved by Hart and Leigh- 
ton, and by Osborn's books. On Sat- 
urday evening, about this time, Richard 
Crowninshield is proved, by Lummus, to 
have been at A\''enham, with another 
person whose appearance corresponds 
with Frank's. Can any one doubt this 
being the same evening? What had 
Richard Crowninshield to do at Wen- 
ham, with Joseph, unless it were this 
business? He was there before the mm*- 
der ; he was there after the murder ; he 
was there clandestinely, unwilling to be 
seen. If it were not upon this business, 
let it be told what it was for. Joseph 
Knapp could explain it; Frank Knapp 
might explain it. But they do not ex- 



plain it; and the inference is against 
them. 

Immediately after this, Richard passes 
five-franc pieces ; on the same evening, 
one to Lummus, five to Palmer; and 
near this time George passes three or 
four in Salem. Here are nine of these 
pieces passed by them in four days ; this 
is extraordinary. It is an unusual cur- 
rency ; in ordinary business, few men 
would pass nine such pieces in the 
course of a year. K they were not re- 
ceived in this way, why not explain how 
they came by them? Money was not so 
flush in their pockets that they could not 
tell whence it came, if it honestly came 
there. It is extremely important to them 
to exjjlain whence this money came, and 
they would do it if they could. If, then, 
the price of blood was paid at this time, 
in the presence and with the knowledge 
of this defendant, does not this prove 
him to have been connected with this 
conspiracy? 

Observe, also, the effect on the mind 
of Richard of Palmer's being arrested 
and committed to prison; the various 
efforts he makes to discover the fact; 
the lowering, through the crevices of 
the rock, the pencil and paper for him 
to write upon ; the sending two lines of 
poetry, with the request that he would 
return the corresponding lines ; the shrill 
and peculiar whistle ; the inimitable 
exclamations of " Palmer! Palmer! 
Palmer! " All these things prove how 
great was his alarm; they corroborate 
Palmer's story, and tend to establish 
the conspiracy. 

Joseph Knapp had a part to act in 
this matter. He must have opened the 
window, and secreted the key; he had 
free access to every part of the house; 
he was accustomed to visit there; he 
went in and out at his pleasure; he 
could do this without being suspected. 
He is proved to have been there tlie 
Saturday preceding. 

If all these things, taken in connec- 
tion, do not prove that Captain White 
was murdered in pursuance of a con- 
spiracy, then the case is at an end. 

Savary's testimony is wholly unex- 
jiected. He was called for a different 



I 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



207 



purpose. When asked wlio the person 
"was that he .>;aw come out of Captain 
White's yard between three and four 
o'clock in the morning, he answered, 
Frank Knapp. It is not clear that this 
is not true. There may be many cir- 
cumstances of importance connected 
with this, though we believe the mur- 
der to have been committed between 
ten and eleven o'clock. The letter to 
Dr. Barstow states it to have been done 
about eleven o'clock; it states it to have 
been done with a blow on the head, from 
a weapon loaded with lead. Here is too 
great a correspondence with the reality 
not to have some meaning in it. Dr. 
Peirson was always of the opinion, that 
the two classes of wounds were made 
with different instruments, and by dif- 
ferent hands. It is jiossible that one 
class was inflicted at one time, and the 
other at another. It is possible that on 
the last visit the pulse might not have 
entirely ceased to beat, and then the 
finishing stroke was given. It is said, 
that, when the body was discovered, 
some of the wounds wept, while the 
others did not. They may have been 
inflicted from mere wantonness. It was 
known that Captain White w^as accus- 
tomed to keep specie by him in his cham- 
ber ; this perhaps may explain the last 
visit. It is proved, that this defendant 
was in the habit of retiring to bed, and 
leaving it afterwards, without the knowl- 
edge of his family; perhaps he did so 
on this occasion. We see no reason to 
doubt the fact; and it does not shake 
our belief that the murder was commit- 
ted early in the night. 

AMiat are the probabilities as to the 
time of the murder? Mr. White was 
an aged man ; he usually retired to bed 
at about half-past nine. lie slept 
soundest in the early part of the night; 
usually awoke in the middle aiul latter 
part; and his habits were perfectly well 
known. When would persons, with a 
knowledge of these facts, be most likely 
to approach him? Most certainly, in the 
first hour of his sleep. Tills would be 
the safest time. If seen then going to 
or from the house, the appearance would 
be least suspicious. The earlier hour 



would then have been most probably 
selected. 

Gentlemen, I shall dwell no longer on 
the evidence which tends to prove that 
there was a conspiracy, and that the 
prisoner was a conspiratiu-. All the 
circumstances concur to make out tliis 
point. Not only Palmer swears to it, in 
effect, and Leighton, but Allen mainly 
supports Palmer, and Osborn's book.s 
lend confirmation, so far as possible, 
from such a source. Palmer is contra- 
dicted in nothing, either by any other 
witness, or any jiroved circiunstancn gr 
occurrence. Whatever could be ex- 
pected to support him does supjxirt 
him. All the evidence clearly mani- 
fests, I think, that there was a conspir- 
acy; that it originated with Joseph 
Knapp; that defendant became a party 
to it, and was one of its conductors, 
from first to last. One of the most 
powerful circumstances is Palmer's let- 
ter from Belfast. The amount of this 
is a direct charge on the Knapps of the 
authorship of this murder. How did 
they treat this charge; like honest men, 
or like guilty men? We have seen how 
it was treated. Joseph Knapp fabricat- 
ed letters, charging another person, and 
caused them to be put into the post- 
office. 

I shall now proceed on 
tion, that it is proved that 
conspiracy to murder ^Ir. 
that the prisoner was party 

The second and the material inquii-y 
is. Was the prisoner present at the mur- 
der, aiding and abetting therein? 

This loads to the legal question in the 
case. AVhat does the law mean, wiien 
it says, that, in order to charge him ivs a 
principal, " he must be present aiding 
and abetting in the murder "? 

In the language of the late Chief Jus- 
tice, " It is not required tliat tiie abet- 
tor shall be actually upon tiie spot when 
the murder is committed, or even in 
sight of the more immediate perpetra- 
tor of the victim, to make him a princi- 
pal. If lie be at a <listance, co-operat- 
ing in the act, by watching to prevent 
relief, or to give an alarm, or to assist 
his confederate in escape, iiaving knowl- 



the su]iposi- 
tiieie was a 
White, and 
to it. 



208 



THE MURDER OF CArXAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



edge of the purpose and object of the 
assassin, this in the eye of the law is 
l)eing present, aiding and abetting, so 
as to make him a principal in the mur- 
der." 

" If he be at a distance co-operating." 
This is not a distance to be measured 
by feet or rods ; if the intent to lend aid 
combine with a knowledge that the mur- 
der is to be committed, and the person 
so intending be so situate that he can by 
any possibility lend this aid in any man- 
ner, then he is present in legal contem- 
plation, lie need not lend any actual 
aid; to be ready to assist is assisting. 

There are two sorts of murder; the 
distinction between them it is of essen- 
tial importance to bear in mind : 1. Mur- 
der in an affray, or upon sudden and 
unexpected provocation. 2. IMurder se- 
cretly, with a deliberate, predetermined 
intention to comn^it the crime. Under 
the first class, the question usually is, 
whether the offence be murder or man- 
slaughter, in the person who commits 
the deed. Under the second class, it is 
often a question whether others than he 
who actually did the deed were present, 
aiding and assisting therein. Offences 
of this" kind ordinarily happen when 
there is nobody present except those who 
go on the same design. If a riot should 
happen in the court-house, and one 
should kill another, this may be mur- 
der, or it may not, according to the in- 
tention with which it was done; which 
is always matter of fact, to be collected 
from the circumstances at the time. 
But in secret murders, premeditated and 
determined on, there can be no doubt of 
the murderous intention; there can be 
no doubt, if a person be present, know- 
ing a murder is to be done, of his con- 
curring in the act. His being there is a 
proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, 
why is he there? 

It has been contended, that proof 
must be given that the person accused 
did actually afford aid, did lend a hand 
in the murder itself; and without this 
proof, although he may be near by, he 
may be presumed to be there for an in- 
nocent purpose; he may have crept si- 
lently there to hear the news, or from 



mere curiosity to see what was going 
on.i Preposterous, absurd! Such an 
idea shocks all common sense. A man 
is found to be a conspirator to commit a 
murder; he has planned it; he has as- 
sisted in arranging the time, the place, 
and the means ; and he is found in the 
place, and at the time, and yet it is sug- 
gested that he might have been there, 
not for co-operation and concurrence, 
but from curiosity ! Such an argument 
deserves no answer. It would be diffi- 
cult to give it one, in decorous terms. 
Is it not to be taken for granted, that a 
man seeks to accomplish his own pur- 
poses? When he has planned a mur- 
der, and is present at its execution, is he 
there to forward or to thwart his own 
design? is he there to assist, or there to 
prevent? But " Curiosity " ! He may 
be there from mere " curiosity " ! Curi- 
osity to witness the success of the execu- 
tion of his own plan of murder! The 
very walls of a court-house ought not 
to stand, the ploughshare should run 
through the ground it stands on, where 
such an argument could find toleration. ^ 
It is not necessary that the abettor 
should actually lend a hand, that he 
should take a part in the act itself ; if he 
be present ready to assist, that is assist- 
ing. Some of the doctrines advanced 
would acquit the defendant, though he 
had gone to the bedchamber of the de- 
ceased, though he had been standing by 
when the assassin gave the blow. This 
is the argument we have heard to-day. 

The coxirt here said, they did not so under- 
stand the argument of the counsel for de- 
fendant. Mr. Dexter said, " Tl.e intent and 
power alone must co-operate." 

No doubt the law is, that being ready 
to assist is assisting, if the party has the 
power to assist, in case of need. It is so 
stated by Foster, who is a high author- 
ity. " If A happeneth to be present at 
a murder, for instance, and taketh no 
part in it, nor endeavoreth to prevent 
it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor 

1 This seems to have been actually the case 
as regards J. F. Knapp. 

2 And yet this argument, so absurd in Mr. 
Webster's opinion, was based on the exact fact. 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



209 



levyeth hue and cry after liini, this 
f5trange behavior of his, though higlily 
criminal, will not of itself render him 
either principal or accessory." " But if 
a fact amounting to murder should be 
committed in prosecution of some un- 
lawful purpose, though it were but a 
l)are trespass, to which A in the case 
last stated had consented, and he had 
gone in order to give assistance, if need 
were, for carrying it into execution, this 
would have amounted to murder in him, 
and in every person present and joining 
with him." "If the fact was com- 
mitted in prosecution of the original 
purpose which was unlawful, the whole 
]>arty will be involved in the guilt of 
liini who gave the blow. For in combi- 
nations of this kind, the mortal stroke, 
tlicjiigh given by one of the party, is 
considered in the eye of the law, and of 
sound reason too, as given by every in- 
dividual present and abetting. The per- 
son actually giving the stroke is no more 
than the hand or instrument by which 
the others strike. ' ' The author, in speak- 
ing of being present, means actual pres- 
ence; not actual in opposition to con- 
structive, for the law knows no such 
distinction. There is but one presence, 
and this is the situation from which aid, 
or supposed aid, may be rendered. The 
law does not say where the person is to 
go, or how near he is to go, but that he 
yiust be where he may give assistance, 
or where the perpetrator may believe 
that he may be assisted by him. Sup- 
pose that he is acquainted with the 
design of the murderer, and has a 
knowledge of the time when it is to be 
carried into effect, and goes out with a 
view to render assistance, if need be; 
why, then, even though the murderer 
does not know of this, the person so 
going out will be an abettor in the 
murder. 

It is contended that the prisoner at 
the l)ar could not be a principal, he being 
in Brown Street, because he could not 
there render assistance; and you are 
called upon to determine this case, ac- 
cording as you may be of opinion whether 
Brown Street was, or was not, a suit- 
able, convenient, well-chosen jslace to 



aid in this murder. This is not the true 
question. The inquiiy is not whether 
you would have selected this place in 
preference to all othei-s, or whether you 
would iiave selected it at all. If the par- 
ties chose it, why .should we doubt about 
it? llow do we know the use they in- 
tended to make of it, or the kind of aid 
tliat he was to afford by being there? 
The (Question for you to consider is. Did 
the defendant go into Brown Street in 
aid of this murder? Did he go there 
by agreement, by appointment with the 
peri)etratorV ^ If so, every thing else 
follows. The main thing, indeed the 
only thing, is to inciuire whether he was 
in Brown Street by appointment with 
llichard Crowninshield. It might be 
to keep general watch; to observe the 
lights, and advise as to time of access; 
to meet tlie murderer on liis n^turn, to 
advise him as to his escape ; to examine 
his clothes, to see if any marks of blood 
were upon them ; to furnish exchange of 
clothes, or new di.sguise, if necessary; to 
tell him through what streets he could 
safely retreat, or whether he could de- 
posit the club in the place designed; or 
it might be without any distinct object, 
but merely to afford that encourage- 
hient which would proceed from Rich- 
ard Crowninshield's con.sciousness that 
he was near. It is of no consequence 
wliether, in your opinion, the place w:us 
well chosen or not, to afford aid; if it 
was so chosen, if it was by appointment 
that he was there, it is enough. Sup- 
pose Richard Crowninshield, when ap- 
plied to to commit the murder, had said, 
" I won't do it unless there can be some 
one near by to favor my escape; I won't 
go unless you will stay in Brown Street." 
Upon the gentleman's argument, he 
would not be an aider and abettor in 
the murder, because the place was not 
well chosen; though it is apparent that 
the being in the ]>lace chosen wa.s a con- 
dition, without whicli the murder would 
never have happened. 

You are to consider the defendant !xn 

one in tiie league, in the combination to 

commit the murder. If he was there by 

appointment with lht> periK?trator, he is 

1 He did not. 



14 



210 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



an abettor. The concurrence of the per- 
petrator in his being there is proved by 
the previous evidence of the conspiracy. 
If Richard Crowninshield, for any pur- 
pose whatsoever, made it a condition of 
the agreement, that Frank Knapp should 
stand as backer, then Frank Knapp was 
an aider and abettor; no matter what 
the aid was, or what sort it was, or de- 
gree, be it ever so little; even if it were 
to judge of the hour when it was best 
to go, or to see when the lights were 
exting-uished, or to give an alarm if 
any one approached. Who better cal- 
culated to judge of these things than 
the murderer himself ? and if he so de- 
termined them, that is sufficient. 

Now as to the facts. Frank Knapp 
knew that the murder was that night to 
be committed; he was one of the con- 
spirators, he knew the object, he knew 
the time. He had that day been to 
Wenham to see Joseph, and probably 
to Danvers to see Richard Crownin- 
shield, for he kept his motions secret. 
He had that day hired a horse and chaise 
of Osborn, and attempted to conceal the 
purpose for which it was used; he had 
intentionally left the place and the price 
blank on Osborn's books. He went to 
Wenham by the way of Danvers; he 
had been told the week before to hasten 
Dick; he had seen the Crowninshields 
several times within a few days ; he had 
a saddle-horse the Saturday night be- 
fore; he had seen Mrs. Beckford at 
Wenham, and knew she would not re- 
turn that night. She had not been 
away before for six weeks, and prob- 
ably would not soon be again. He had 
just come from Wenham. Every day, 
for the week previous, he had visited 
one or another of these conspirators, 
save Sunday, and then probably he saw 
them in town. When he saw Joseph on 
the 6th, Joseph had prepared the house, 
and would naturally tell him of it; there 
were constant communications between 
them; daily and nightly visitation; too 
much knowledge of these parties and 
this transaction, to leave a particle of 
doubt on the mind of any one, that 
Frank Knapp knew the murder was to 
be committed this night. The houi- was 



come, and he knew it; if so, and he was 
in Brown Street, without explaining why 
he was there, can the jury for a moment 
doubt whether he was there to counte- 
nance, aid, or support; or for curiosity 
alone ; or to learn how the wages of sin 
and death were earned by the perpe- 
trator? 

Here Mr. Webster read the law from 
Hawkins. 1 Hawk. 204, Lib. 1, ch. 32, 
sec. 7. 

The perpetrator would derive courage, 
and strength, and confidence, from the 
knowledge that one of his associates 
was near by. If he was in Brown 
Street, he could have been there for no 
other purpose. If there for this pur- 
pose, then he was, in the language of 
the law, present, aiding and abetting in 
the murder. 

His interest lay in being somewhere 
else. If he had nothing to do with the 
murder, no part to act, why not stay at 
home? Why should he jeopard his own ^ 
life, if it was not agTeed that he should 
be there? He would not voluntarily go I 
where the very place would cause him 
to swing if detected. He would not 
voluntarily assume the place of danger. 
His taking this place proves that he 
went to give aid. His staying away 
would have made an alibi. If he had 
nothing to do with the murder, he 
would be at home, where he could prove 
his alibi. He knew he was in danger, 
because he was guilty of the conspiracy, 
and, if he had nothing to do, would 
not expose himself to suspicion or 
detection. 

Did the prisoner at the bar counte- 
nance this murder? Did he concur, or 
did he non-concur, in what the perpe- 
trator was about to do? Would he 
have tried to shield him? Would he 
have furnished his cloak for protection? 
Would he have pointed out a safe way 
of retreat? As you would answer these 
questions, so you should answer the 
general question, whether he was there 
consenting to the murder, or whether 
he was there as a spectator only. 

One word more on this presence, 
called constructive presence. What aid 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



211 



s to be rendered? AATiere is the line to 
)e drawn, between acting, and omitting 
o act? Suppose he had been in the 
loiise, suppose he had followed the per- 
jetrator to the chamber, what could he 
lave done? This was to be a murder 
)y stealth; it was to be a secret assas- 
lination. It was not their purpose to 
lave an open combat; they were to ap- 
jroach their victim uuawares, and si- 
ently give the fatal blow. Hut if he 
lad been in the chamber, no one can 
loubt that he woiild have been an 
ibettor; because of his presence, and 
ibility to render ser\aces, if needed. 
^Vliat service could he have rendered, if 
;here? Could he have helped him to 
lyV Could he have aided the silence 
)f his movements? Could he have fa- 
lilitated his retreat, on the first alarm? 
surely, this was a case where there was 
nore of safety in going alone than 
jvith another; wliere company would 
5nly embarrass. Richard Crowninsliield 
fv'ould prefer to go alone. He knew his 
irrand too well. His nei-ves needed no 
collateral support. He was not the 
tnan to take with him a trembling com- 
panion. He would prefer to have his 
lid at a distance. He would not wish 
to be encumbered by his presence. He 
woidd prefer to have him out of the 
liouse. He would prefer that he .should 
be in Brown Street. But whether in 
the chamber, in the house, in the 
garden, or in the street, whatsoever is 
aiding in actual presence is aiding in 
constructive presence ; any thing that is 
aid in one case is aid in the other. ^ 

If, then, the aid be anj^-here. so as to 
embolden the perpetrator, to afford him 
hope or confidence in his enterprise, it 
is the same as ■though the person stood 
at his elbow with his sword drawn. His 
being there ready to act, with the power 
to act, is what makes him an aV)ettor. 

Here Mr. Webster referred to tlie eases 
of Killy, of Hyde, and others, cited by 
counsel for tlie defendant, and showed that 
tliey did not militate with tlie doctrine for 
which he contended. The dilTcrence is, in 
those cases there was open violence; this 

1 4 Hawk. 201, Lib. 4, ch. 29, sec. 8. 



was a case of secret assassination. The 
aid must meet tlie occasion. Here no nci- 
in<i was necessary, hut watching, conceaU 
ment of escajte, nianafjenient. 

What are the facts in relation to this 
presence? Frank Knapp is proved to 
have been a conspirator, proved to have 
known that the deed was now to be 
done. Is it not probable that he was in 
Brown Street to concur in tlie murder? 
There were four conspirators. It was 
natural that some one of them should 
go with the perj>etrator. Uiciiard Crown- 
insliield was to be the j)erpetratur; ho 
was to give the blow. There is no evi- 
dence of any ca.sting of the parts for 
the others. The defendant would prob- 
ably be the man to take the second 
part. He was fond of exploits, he was 
accustomed to the use of sword-canes 
and dirks. If any aid was required, 
he was the man to give it. At least, 
there is no evidence to the contrary 
of this. 

Aid could not have been received 
from Josej^h Knapp, or from George 
Crowninsliield. Joseph Knapp w;is at 
Wenham, and took good care to prove 
that he was there. George Crownin- 
shield has proved satisfactorily where 
he was; that he was in other company, 
such as it was. until eleven o'clock. 
This narrows the inquiry. This de- 
mands of the prisoner to show, if he 
was not in this place, where he was. 
It calls on him loudly to show this, and 
to show it truly. If he could show it, 
he would do it. If he does not tell, and 
that truly, it is against him. The de- 
fence of an alibi is a double-edged 
sword. He knew that he was in a sit- 
uation wliere he might be calleil ui>on 
to account for himself. If he had lia<l 
no particular appointment or bnsin<'.<s 
to attend to, he would have taken care 
to be able so to account. He would 
have been out of town, or in some good 
company. Has he accounted for him- 
.self on that night to yonr .satisfaction? 

The prisoner has attempted to prove 
an aHh'> in two ways. In the first place, 
by four young men with whom he says 
he was in company, on the evening 
of the murder, from seven o'clock till 



212 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



near ten o'clock. This depends upon 
the certainty of the night. In the 
second place, by his family, from ten 
o'clock afterwards. This depends upon 
the certainty of the time of the night. 
These two classes of proof have no con- 
nection with each other. One may be 
true, and the other false; or they may 
both be true, or both be false. I shall 
examine this testimony with some at- 
tention, because, on a former trial, it 
made more impression on the minds of 
the court than on my own mind. I 
think, when carefully sifted and com- 
pared, it will be found to have in it 
more of plausibility than reality. 

ISIi-. Page testifies, that on the evening 
of the 6th of April he was in company 
with Bm-chmore, Balch, and Forrester, 
and that he met the defendant aboi.it 
seven o'clock, near the Salem Hotel; 
that he afterwards met him at Re- 
mond's, about nine o'clock, and that 
he was in company with him a consid- 
erable part of the evening. This young 
gentleman is a member of college, and 
says that he came to townti the Saturday 
evening previous; that he is now able 
to say that it was the night of the mur- 
der when he walked with Frank Knapp, 
from the recollection of the fact, that 
he called himself to an account, on the 
morning after the murder, as it is nat- 
ural for men to do when an extraor- 
dinary occurrence happens. Gentlemen, 
this kind of evidence is not satisfactory ; 
general impressions as to time are not 
to be relied on. If I were called on to 
state the particular day on which any 
witness testified in this cause, I could 
not do it. Every man will notice the 
same thing in his own mind. There is 
no one of these yoang men that could 
give an account of himself for any other 
day in the month of April. They are 
made to remember the fact, and then 
they think they remember the time. 
The witness has no means of knowing 
it was Tuesday rather than any other 
time. He did not know it at first; he 
could not know it afterwards. He says 
he called himself to an account. This 
has no more to do with the murder than 
with the man in the moon. Such testi- 



mony is not worthy to be relied on in 
any forty-shilling cause. What occasion 
had he to call himself to an account? 
Did he sujipose that he should be sus- 
pected? Had he any intimation of thi8> 
conspiracy? I 

Suppose, Gentlemen, you were eitherr 
of you asked where you were, or what 
you were doing, on the fifteenth day of 
June ; you could not answer this ques- 
tion without calling to mind some events 
to make it certain. Just as well may 
you remember on what you dined each 
day of the year past. Time is identical. \ 
Its subdivisions are all alike. No man 
knows one day from another, or one 
hour from another, but by some fact . 
connected with it. Days and hours are j 
not visil:)le to the senses, nor to be appre- 
hended and distinguished by the under- ■ 
standing. The flow of time is known i 
only by something which marks it ; and 1 
he who speaks of the date of occurrences ^ 
with nothing to guide his recollection i 
speaks at random, and is not to be relied 1 
on. This young gentleman remembers 
the facts and occurrences; he knows' 
nothing why they should not have hap-i 
pened on the evening of the 6th; but he j 
knows no more. All the rest is evi- 
dently conjecture or impression. 

Mr. White informs you, that he told 
him he could not tell what night it was. 
The first thoughts are all that are valu- 
able in such case. They miss the mark 
by taking second aim. 

Mr. Balch believes, but is not sure, 
that he was with Frank Knapp on the 
evening of the murder. He has given 
different accounts of the time. He has 
no means of making it certain. All he 
knows is, that it was some evening be- 
fore Fast-day. But whether Monday, 
Tuesday, or Saturday, he cannot tell. 

Mr. Burchmore says, to the best of 
his belief, it was the evening of the 
murder. Afterwards he attempts to 
speak positively, from recollecting that 
he mentioned the circumstance to AVil-l 
liam Peirce, as he went to the Mineral 
Spring on Fast-day. Last Monday 
morning he told Colonel Putnam he 
could not fix the time. This witness 
stands in a much worse plight than 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



213 



ither of the others. It is difficult to 
econcile all he has said with any belief 
ri the accuracy of his recollections. 

Mr. Forrester does not speak with any 
ertainty as to the nij^^ht ; and it is very 
ertain that he told Mr. Loring and oth- 
rs, that he did not know what night it 
vas. 

Now, what does the testimony of 
hese four young men amount to? The 
inly circumstance by which they ap- 
•roximate to an identifying of the night 
s, that three of them say it was cloudy ; 
hey think their walk was either on 
klonday or Tuesday evening, and it is 
,dmitted that Monday evening was 
lear, whence they draw the inference 
hat it must have been Tuesday. 

But, fortunately, there is one fact 
iisclosed in their testimony that settles 
he question. Balch says, that on the 
ivening, whenever it was, he saw the 
)risoner; the prisoner told him he was 
foing out of town on horseback, for a 
list auce of about twenty minutes' drive, 
ijid that he was going to get a horse at 
)sborn's. This was about seven o'clock. 
\t about nine, Balch says he saw the 
)risoner again, and was then told by 
lira that he had had his ride, and had 
•eturned. Now it appears by Osborn's 
jooks, that the prisoner had a saddle- 
lorse from his stable, not on Tuesday 
ivening, the night of the murder, but 
rti the Saturday evening previous. This 
ixes the time about which these young 
■nen testify, and is a complete answer 
uid refutation of the attempted alibi on 
luesday evening. 

T come now to .speak of the testimony 
adduced by the defendant to explain 
where he was after ten o'clock on the 
night of the murder. This comes chiefly 
from members of the family; from his 
father and brothers. 

It is agreed that the affidavit of the 
prisoner should be received as evidence 
of what his brother, Samuel H. Knapp, 
would testify if present. Samu<'l II. 
Knapp says, that, about ten minutes 
past ten o'clock, his brother, Frank 
Knapp, on his way to bed, opened his 
chamlier door, made some remarks. 



closed the door, and went to liis cham- 
ber; and that he did not hear him leave 
it afterwards. How is this witness able 
to fix the time at ten minutes past t<2n? 
Tliere is no circumstance mentioned by 
which he fixes it. He had been in bed, 
probably asleep, and wius aroused from 
his sleep by the oi>ening of tiie door. 
Was he in a situation to speak of time 
with precision? Could he know, uiuler 
such circum.stances, whether it was ten 
minutes past ten, or ten minutes be- 
fore eleven, when his brother spoke to 
him? What would be tiie natural re- 
sult in such a case? But we are not left 
to conjecture this result. We have 
positive testimony on this jioint. Mr. 
Webb tells you that Samuel told him, 
on the 8th of June, " that he did not 
know what time his brotlier Frank came 
home, and that he was not at home when 
he went to bed." You will consider 
this testimony of Mr. Webb as indorsed 
upon this affidavit; and with this in- 
dorsement upon it, you will give it ita 
due weight. This statement was made 
to him after Frank was arrested. 

I come to the testimony of the father. 
I find myself incapable of speaking of 
him or his testimony with severity. I'li- 
fortunate old man! Another Lear, in 
the conduct of his children; another 
Lear, I apprehend, in the effect of his 
distress upon his mind and understand- 
ing, lie is brought here to testify, un- 
der circumstances that disarm severity, 
and call loudly for sympathy. Though 
it is impossible not to .see that his story 
cannot be credited, yet I am unable to 
speak of him otherwise tlian in sorrow 
and grief. Unhaj>py father! he strives 
to remember, perhaps t)ersuades himself 
that he does remember, that on the even- 
ing of the murder he wa.s iiimself at 
home at ten o'clock. He thinks, or 
seems to think, that liis son came in at 
about five minutes jni.st ten. He fancies 
that he remembers his conversation; he 
thinks he .spoke of bolting the door; he 
thinks he asked tin- tiun' of night; 
he seems to remember his then going to 
his bed. Alas! the.se are but the swim- 
ming fancies of an agitated and disln-ssed 
mind. Ahus! they are but Uie dreams 



214 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



of hope, its uncertain lights, flickering 
on the thick darkness of parental dis- 
tress. Alas ! the miserable father knows 
nothing, in reality, of all these things. 

Mr. Shepard says that the first con- 
versation he had with Mv. Knapp was 
soon after the murder, and before the 
arrest of his sons. Mr. Knapp says it 
was after the arrest of his sons. His 
own fears led him to say to Mr. Shep- 
ard, that his "son Frank was at home 
that night; and so Phippen told him," 
or "as Phippen told him." Mr. Shep- 
ard says that he was struck with the 
remark at the time; that it made an 
unfavorable impression on his mind; 
lie does not tell you what that impression 
was, but when you connect it with the 
previous inquiry he had made, whether 
Frank had continued to associate with 
the Crowninshields, and recollect that 
the Crowninshields were then known 
to be suspected of this crime, can you 
doubt what this impression was? can you 
doubt as to the fears he then hadV 

This poor old man tells you, that he 
was greatly perj^lexed at the time ; that 
he found himself in embarrassed cir- 
cumstances ; that on this very night he 
was engaged in making an assignment 
of his property to his friend, Mr. Shep- 
ard. If ever charity should furnish a 
mantle for error, it should be here. Im- 
agination cannot picture a more deplora- 
ble, distressed condition. 

The same general remarks may be 
applied to his conversation with Mr. 
Tread well, as have been made upon that 
with Mr. Shepard. He told him, that 
he believed Frank was at home about 
the usiuil time. In his conversations 
•with either of these persons, he did not 
j)retend to know, of his own knowledge, 
the time that he came home. He now 
tells you positively that he recollects the 
time, and that he so told Mr. Shepard. 
He is directly contradicted by both these 
witnesses, as respectable men as Salem 
affords. 

This idea of an alibi is of recent ori- 
gin. Would Samuel Knapp have gone 
to sea if it were then thought of V His 
testimony, if true, was too imp(;rtant to 
be lost. If there be any truth in this 



part of the alibi, it is so near in point of 
time that it cannot be relied on. The 
mere variation of half an hour would 
avoid it. The mere variations of differ- 
ent timepieces would explain it. 

Has the defendant proved where he 
was on that night? If you doubt about 
it, there is an end of it. The burden 
is upon him to satisfy you beyond all 
reasonable doubt. Osborn's books, in 
connection with what the young men 
state, are conclusive, I think, on this 
point. He has not, then, accounted for 
himself; he has attemjited it, and has 
failed. I pray you to remember, Gen- 
tlemen, that this is a case in which the 
jM-isoner would, more than any other, be 
rationally able to account for himself on 
the night of the murder, if he could do 
so. He was in the conspiracy, he knew 
the murder was then to be committed, 
and if he himself was to have no hand 
in its actual execution, he would of 
course, as a matter of safety and precau- 
tion, be somewhere else, and be able to 
prove afterwards that he had been some- 
where else. Having this motive to prove 
himself elsewhere, and the power to do 
it if he were elsewhere, his failing in 
such proof must necessarily leave a very 
strong inference against hiin. 

But, Gentlemen, let us now consider 
what is the evidence jsroduced on the 
part of tlie government to prove that 
John Francis Knapp,' the prisoner at the 
bar, was in Brown Street on the night 
of the murder. This is a point of vital 
importance in this cause. Unless this 
be made out, beyond reasonable doubt, 
the law of presence does not apply to the 
case. The government undertake to 
prove that he was present aiding in the 
murder, by proving that he was in Brown 
Street for this purpose. Now, what are 
the undoubted facts? They are, that 
two persons were seen in that street, 
several times during that evening, under 
suspicious circumstances; under such 
circumstances as induced those who saw 
them to watch their movements. Of 
this there can be no doubt. Mirick 
saw a man standing at the post opposite 
his store from fifteen minutes before 
nine until twenty minutes after, dressed 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



215 



in a full frock-coat, glazed cap, and so 
forth, in size and general appearance 
;i!iswering to the prisoner at the bar. 
'i'his person was waiting there; and 
whenever any one approached him, he 
moved to and from tlie corner, as tliough 
he would avoid being suspected or rec- 
ognized. Afterwards, two persons were 
seen by Webster, walking in Howard 
.Street, with a slow, deliberate movement 
that attracted his attention. This was 
about half-past nine. One of these he 
took to be the prisoner at the bar, the 
other he did not know. 

About half-past ten a person is seen 
sitting on the rope-walk steps, wrapjjed 
in a cloak. He drops his head when 
passed, to avoid being known. Shortly 
after, two persons are seen to meet in this 
street, without ceremony or salutation, 
and in a hurried manner to converse for 
a short time; then to separate, and run 
oif with great speed. Now, on this same 
night a gentleman is slain, murdered 
in his bed, his house being entered by 
stealth from without; and his house sit- 
uated within three hundred feet of this 
street. The windows of his chamber 
were in plain sight from this street; a 
weapon of death is afterwards found in 
a place where these persons were seen to 
pass, in a retired place, around which 
they had been seen lingering. It is now 
known that this murder was committed 
l)y four persons, conspiring together for 
this purpose. No accoinit is given who 
these suspected persons thus seen in 
Brown Street and its neighborhood were. 
Now, I ask, Gentlemen, whether you or 
any man can doubt that this murder was 
committed by the persons who wei-e thus 
in and about Brown Street. Can any 
])erson doubt that they were there for 
])urposes connected with this murder? 
If not for this purpose, what were they 
there for? When there is a cause so 
near at hand, why wander into conjec- 
ture for an explanation? Common-sense 
requires you to take the nearest ade- 
quate cause for a known effect. Who 
were these suspicious persons in Brown 
Street? There was something extraor- 
dinary about them; something notici',- 
able, and noticed at the time: sometliing 



in their appearance that aroused 8u.spi- 
cion. And a man is found the next 
morning murdered in the near vicinity. 

Now, so long as no other account sliall 
be given of those suspicious persons, so 
long the inference must remain irresisti- 
ble that they were the murderers. Let 
it be remembered, that it is already 
shown that this murder was the result 
of conspiracy and of concert; let it be 
remembered, that the house, having 
been opened from within, was entered 
by stealth from witliout. Let it be 
remembered that Brown Street, where 
these persons were repeatedly seen under 
such suspicious circumstances, was a place 
from which every occupied room in i\Ir. 
White's house is clearly seen ; let it be 
remembered, that the place, though thus 
verj' near to j\lr. White's house, is a re- 
tired and lonely place; and let it be re- 
membered that the instrument of death 
was afterwards found concealed very 
near the same spot. 

Must not every man come to the con- 
clusion, that these persons thus seen 
in Brown Street were the murderers? 
Every man's own judgment, I tliink, 
must satisfy him that this mu.st be so. 
It is a plain deduction of common sense. 
It is a point on which eacii one of you 
may reason like a Hale or a Mansfield. 
The two occurrences explain each other.. 
The murder shows why these persons 
were thus lurking, at that hour, in Brown 
Street; and their lurking in Brown Street 
shows who committed tiie nmrder. 

If, then, the persons in and about 
Brown Street were the plotters and exe- 
cuters of the murder of Captain AVhite, 
we know who tiiej' were, and you know 
that there is one of them. 

This fearful concatenation of circum- 
stances puts him to an account. He 
was a conspirator. He had entered into 
this plan of murder. The murder is 
committed, and he is known to have 
been within three minutes' walk of the 
place. He must account for himself. 
He has attempted this, and failetl. 
Then, with all these general reason.s to 
show he was actually in Brown Street, 
and his failures in his iilihi, let us see 
wliat is the direct proof of hLs being 



216 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



there. But first, let me ask, is it not 
very remarkable that there is no attempt 
to siiow where Richard Crowninsliield, 
Jr. was on that niglitV We hear noth- 
ing of him. He was seen in none of his 
tisual haunts about the town. Yet, if 
lie was the actual perpetrator of the mur- 
der, which nobody doubts, he was in the 
town somewhere. Can you, therefore, 
entertain a doubt that he was one of 
the persons seen in Brown Street? And 
as to the prisoner, you will recollect, 
that, since the testimony of the young 
men has failed to show where he was on 
that evening, the last we hear or know 
of him, on the day preceding the mur- 
der, is, that at four o'clock, p. m., he 
was at his brother's in Wenham. He 
had left home, after dinner, in a manner 
doubtless designed to avoid observation, 
and had gone to Wenham, probably by 
way of Danvers. As we hear nothing 
of him after four o'clock, p. m., for the 
remainder of the day and evening; as he 
was one of the conspii-ators ; as Richard 
Crowninsliield, Jr. was another; as 
Richard Crowninshield, Jr. was in town 
in the evening, and yet seen in no usual 
place of resort, — the inference is very 
fair, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
and the prisoner were together, acting 
in execution of their conspiracy. Of 
the four conspirators, J. J. Knapp, Jr. 
w;is at ^Vellham, and George Crownin- 
shield has been accounted for; so that 
if the persons seen in Brown Street were 
the murderers, one of them must have 
been Richard Crowninshield, Jr., and 
the other must have been the prisoner at 
the bar. 

Now, as to the proof of his identity 
with one of the persons seen in Brown 
Street. Mr. Mirick, a cautious witness, 
examined the person he saw, closely, in 
a light night, and says that he thinks 
the j)risoner at the bar is the person; and 
that he .should not hesitate at all, if he 
were seen in the same dress. His opin- 
ion is formed partly from his own obser- 
vation, and partly from the description 
of others. But this description turns 
out to be only in regard to the dress. It 
is said, that he is now more confident 
tlian on the former trial. If he has 



varied in his testimony, make such al- 
lowance as you may think proper. I do 
not perceive any material variance. He 
thought him the same person, when he 
was first brought to court, and as he saw 
him get out of the chaise. This is one 
of the cases in which a witness is per- 
mitted to give an opinion. This wit- 
ness is as honest as yourselves, neither 
willing nor swift; but he says, he be- 
lieves it was the man. His words are, 
' ' This is my opinion ' ' ; and this opinion 
it is proper for him to give. If partly 
founded on what he has heard, then this 
opinion is not to be taken; but if on 
what he saw, then you can have no better 
evidence. I lay no stress on similarity 
of dress. No man will ever lose his life 
by my voice on such evidence. But 
then it is proper to notice, that no infer- 
ences drawn from any dissimilarity of 
dress can be given in the prisoner's 
favor; because, in fact, the person seen 
by Mirick was dressed like the prisoner. 

The description of the person seen by 
Mirick answers to that of the prisoner 
at the bar. In regard to the supposed 
discrepancy of statements, before and 
now, there would be no end to such 
minute inquiries. It would not be 
strange if witnesses should vary. I do 
not think much of slight shades of varia- 
tion. If I believe the witness is honest, 
that is enough. If he has expressed 
himself more strongly now than then, 
this does not prove him false. 

Peter E. Webster saw the prisoner at 
the bar, as he then thought, and still 
thinks, walking in Howard Street at 
half-past nine o'clock. He then thought 
it was Frank Knapp, and has not altered 
his opinion since. He knew him well ; 
he had long known him. If he then 
thought it was he, this goes far to prove 
it. He observed him the more, as it was 
unusual to see gentlemen w^alk there at 
that hour. It was a retired, lonely street. 
Now, is there reasonable doubt that Mr. 
Webster did see him there that night? 
How can you have more jiroof than this? 
He judged by his walk, by his general 
appearance, by his deportment. We all 
judge in this manner. If you believe 
he is right, it goes a great way in this 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



217 



case. But then this person, it is said, 
had a cloak on, and that he could not, 
therefore, be the same person that Mirick 
saw. If we were treating of men that 
had no occasion to disguise themselves 
or their conduct, there might be some- 
thing in this argument. But as it is, 
there is little in it. It may be presumed 
that they would change their dress. This 
-would help their disguise. What is easier 
than to throw off a cloak, and again put 
it on? Perhaps he was less fearful of 
being known when alone, than when 
with the perpetrator. 

;Mr. Southwick swears all that a man 
can swear. lie has the best means of 
judging that could be had at the time. 
He tells you that he left his father's 
house at half-past ten o'clock, and as he 
jiassed to his own house in Brown Street 
he saw a man sitting on the steps of the 
rope-walk; that he passed him three 
times, and each time he held down his 
head, so that he did not see his face. That 
the man had on a cloak, which was not 
wi-apped around him, and a glazed cap. 
That he took the man to be Frank Knapp 
at the time ; that, when he went into his 
house, he told his wife that he thought 
it was Frank Knapp; that he knew him 
well, having known him from a boy. 
And his wife swears that he did so teU 
her when he came home. What could 
mislead this witness at the time? He 
was not then suspecting Frank Knapp 
of any thing. He could not then be in- 
fluenced by any prejudice. If you believe 
that the witness saw Frank Knapp in this 
position at this time, it proves the case. 
AVhether you believe it or not depends 
upon the credit of the witness. He 
swears it. If true, it is solid evidence. 
Mrs. Southwick supports her husband. 
Are they true? Are they worthy of 
belief? If he deserves the epithets ap- 
plied to him, then he ought not to be 
believed. In this fact they cannot be 
mistaken; they are right, or they are 
perjured. As to his not speaking to 
Frank Knayip, that depends upon their 
intimacy. But a very good reason is, 
Frank chose to disguise himself. This 
makes nothing against his credit. But 
it is said that he should not be believed. 



And why? BecaiLse, it is said, ho him- 
self now tells you, that, when he testi- 
fied before the grand jury at Ipswich, he 
did not then say that he tliouglit tiie 
person he saw in Brown Street was 
Frank Knapp, but that "the person 
was about the size of Selman." The 
means of attacking him, therefore, come 
from himself. If he is a false man, why 
should he tell truths against himself? 
they rely on his veracity to prove that he 
is a liar. Before you can come to this 
conclusion, you will consider whether all 
the circumstances are now known, that 
should have a bearing on this point. 
Suppose that, when he was before the 
grand jury, he was asked by the attor- 
ney this question, " Was the person you 
saw in Brown Street about the size of 
Selman? " and he answered Yes. This 
was all true. Suppose, also, that he 
expected to be inquii'ed of further, and 
no further questions were put to him. 
Would it not be extremely hard to im- 
pute to him perjury for this? It is not 
uncommon for witnesses to tliink thai 
they have done all their duty, when they 
have answered the questions put to them. 
But suppose that we admit that he did 
not then tell all he knew, this does not 
affect the fact at all; because he did tell, 
at the time, in the hearing of others, 
that the person he saw was Frank Knapp. 
There is not the slightest suggestion 
against the veracity or accuracy of Mrs. 
Southwick. Now she swears positively, 
that her husband came into the house 
and told her that he had seen a person 
on the rope-walk steps, and believed it 
was Frank Knapp. 

It is said that Mr. Soutliwick is con- 
tradicted, also, by Mr. Shillaber. 1 do 
not .so understand Mr. Slulluber's testi- 
mony. I think what tlii-y both testify 
is reconcilable, and- consistent. My 
learned brother said, on a similar occa- 
sion, that there is more probability, in 
such cases, that the persons hearing 
should misunderstand, tlian that the 
person sjieaking should cuntnidict iiim- 
self. I think tiie same remark appli- 
cable here. 

You have all witnesst'd th'i uncer- 
tainty of testimony, vshen witnesses are 



218 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



called to testify what other witnesses 
said. Several respectable counsellors 
have been summoned, on this occasion, 
to give testimony of that sort. They 
iiave, every one of them, given different 
versions. Tliey all took minutes at the 
time, and without doubt intend to state 
the truth. But still they differ. Mr. 
Shillaber's version is different from 
every thing that Southwick has stated 
elsewhere. But little reliance is to be 
placed on slight variations in testimony, 
unless they are manifestly intentional. 
1 think that Mr. Shillaber must be sat- 
isfied that he did not rightly understand 
Mr. Southwicik. T confess I misunder- 
stood Mr. Shillaber on the former trial, 
if I now rightly understand him. I, 
therefore, did not then recall Mr. South- 
wick to the stand. Mr. Southwick, as I 
read it, understood Mr. Shillaber as ask- 
ing him about a person coming out of 
Newbury Street, and whether, for aught 
he knew, it might not be Richard 
Crowninshield, -Jr. He answered, that 
he could not tell. He did not under- 
stand Mr. Shillaber as questioning him 
as to the person whom he saw sitting on 
the steps of the rope-walk. Southwick, 
on this trial, having heard Mr. Shillaber, 
has been recalled to the stand, and states 
that jNIr. Shillabpr entirely misunder- 
stood him. This is certainly most prob- 
able, because the controlling fact in the 
case is not controverted; that is, that 
Souiliwick did tell his wife, at the very 
moment he entered his house, that he 
liad seen a person on the rope-walk steps, 
whom he believed to be Frank Knapp. 
Nothing can prove with more certainty 
than this, that Southwick, at the time, 
thouf/ht the person whom he thus saw to 
be the prisoner at the bar. 

Mr. Bray is an acknowledged accu- 
rate and nitelligent witness. He was 
liighly complimented by my brother on 
the former trial, although he now charges 
him with varying his testimony. What 
could be his motive? You will be slow 
in imputing to him any design of this 
kind. I deny altogether that there is 
any contradiction. There may be dif- 
ferences, but not contradiction. These 
arise from the difference in the questions 



put; the difference between believing 
and knowing. On the first trial, he 
said he did not know the person, and 
now says the same. Then, we did not 
do all we had a right to do. AVe did not 
ask him who he thought it was. Now, 
when so asked, he says he believes it 
was the prisoner at the bar. Jf he had 
then been asked this question, he would 
have given the same answer. That he 
has expressed himself more strongly, I 
admit ; but he has not contradicted him- 
self. He is more confident now; and 
that is all. A man may not assert a ■ 
thing, and still may have no doubt upon 
it. Cannot every man see this distinc- 
tion to be consistent? I leave him in 
that attitude; that only is the difference. 
On questions of identity, opinion is evi- 
dence. We may ask the witness, either 
if he knew who the person seen was, or 
who he thinks he was. And he may 
well answer, as Captain Bray has an- 
swered, that he does not know who it 
was, but that he thinks it was the pris- 
oner. 

We have offered to produce witnesses 
to prove, that, as soon as Bray saw the 
prisoner, he pronounced him the same 
person. We are not at liberty to call 
them to corroborate our own witness. 
How, then, could this fact of the pris- 
oner's being in Brown Street be better 
proved? If ten witnesses had testified 
to it, it would be no better. Two men, 
who knew him well, took it to be Frank 
Knapp, and one of them so said, when 
there was nothing to mislead them. 
Two others, who examined him closely, 
now swear to their opinion that he is the 
man. 

Miss Jaqueth saw three persons pass 
by the rope-walk, several evenings before 
the murder. She saw one of them point- 
ing towards Mr. White's house. She 
noticed that another had something 
which appeared to be like an instru- 
ment of music; that he put it behind 
him and attempted to conceal it. Who 
were these persons? This was but a 
few steps from the place where this ap- 
parent instrument of music (of 7nusic 
such as Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
spoke of to Palmer) was afterwards 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEril WHITE. 



219 



found. These facts prove this a point 
of rendezvous for these parties. They 
show Brown Street to have been the 
l>lace for consultation and observation; 
and to this purpose it was well suited. 

Mr. Burns's testimony is also impor- 
tant. Wliut was the defendant's object 
in his private conversation with Burns? 
He knew that Burns was out that night; 
that he lived near Brown Stieet, and 
that he had probably seen him ; and he 
wished him to say nothing. He said to 
Burns, " If you saw any of your friends 
out that night, say nothing about it; 
my brother Joe and I are your friends." 
This is plain proof that he wished to say 
to him, if you saw me in Brown Street 
that night, say nothing about it. 

But it is said that Burns ought not to 
be believed, because he mistook the color 
of the dagger, and because he has varied 
in his description of it. These are slight 
circumstances, if his general character 
be good. To my mind they are of no 
importance. It is for you to make what 
deduction you may think proper, on this 
account, from the weight of his evidence. 
His conversation with Burns, if Burns 
is believed, shows two things; first, that 
he desired Burns not to mention it, if he 
had seen him on the night of the mur- 
der; second, that he wished to fix the 
charge of murder on Mr. Stephen White. 
Both of these prove his own guilt. 

I think you will be of opinion, that 
Brown Street was a probable place for 
the conspirators to assemble, and for an 
aid to be stationed, if we knew their 
■whole plan, and if we were skilled to 
judge in such a case, then we could per- 
haps determine on this point better. 
But it is a retired place, and still com- 
mands a full view of the house ; a lonely 
place, but still a place of observation. 
Not so lonely that a person would excite 
suspicion to be seen walking there in an 
ordinary manner; not so public as to be 
noticed by many. It is near enough to 
the scene of action in point of law. It 
was their point of centrality. The club 
was found near the spot, in a place pro- 
vided for it, in a place that had been 
previously hunted out, in a concerted 
place of concealment. Here was their 



point of rendezvous. Here might the 
lights be seen. Here might an aid be 
secreted. Here was he within call. 
Here might he be aroused by tiie sound 
of the whistle. Here might he carry the 
weapon. Here might he receive the 
murderer after the murder. 

Then, Gentlemen, the general ques- 
tion occurs. Is it satisfactorily proved, 
by all these facts and circumsLaiice.s, 
that the defendant was in and about 
Brown Street on the night of the mur- 
der? Considering that the murder was 
effected by a conspiracy; con.sidering 
that he was one of the four conspirators ; 
considering that two of the conspirators 
have accounted for themselves on the 
night of the murder, and were not in 
Brown Street ; considering that the pri.s- 
oner does not account for himself, nor 
show where he was; considering that 
Richard Crowninshield, the other con- 
spirator and the perpetrator, is not ac- 
counted for, nor shown to be elsewhere; 
considering that it is now past all doubt 
that two persons were seen lurking in 
and about Brown Street at dilferent 
times, avoiding observation, and excit- 
ing so much suspicion that the neigh- 
bors actually watched them ; considering 
that, if these persons thus lurking in 
Brown Street at that hour were not the 
murderers, it remains to this day wholly 
unknown who they were or what their 
business was; considering the testimony 
of Miss Jaqueth, and that the club was 
afterwards found near this place ; consid- 
ering, finally, that Webster and Soulh- 
wick saw these persons, and then took 
one of them for the defendant, and that 
Southwick then told his wife .so, and 
that Bray and Mirick examined them 
closely, and now swear to tln-ir belief 
that the prisoner wa.s one of them ; — it 
i,s for you to say, putting these consider- 
ations together, whether you believe the 
prisoner wa.s actually in Brown Street 
at the time of the murder. 

By the coun.sel for the prisoner, iinich 
stress has been laid upon the question, 
whether Brown Street was a I'lace in 
which aid could be given, a place in 
wliich actual assistance could be ren- 
dered in this transaction. This must l)e 



220 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



mainly decided by their own opinion 
who selected the place; by what they 
thought at the time, according to their 
plan of operation. 

If it was agreed that the prisoner 
should be there to assist, it is enough. 
If they thought the place proper for their 
purpose, according to their plan, it is 
sufficient. Suppose we could prove ex- 
pressly that they agreed that Frank 
should be there, and he was there, and 
you should think it not a well-chosen 
place for aiding and abetting, must he 
be acquitted? No! It is not what / 
think or you think of the appropriate- 
ness of the place ; it is what they thought 
at the time. If the prisoner was in 
Brown Street by appointment and agree- 
ment with the perpetrator, for the pur- 
pose of giving assistance if assistance 
should be needed, it may safely be pre- 
sumed that the place was suited to such 
assistance as it was supposed by the par- 
ties might chance to become requisite. 

If in Brown Street, was he there by 
appointment? was he there to aid, if 
aid were necessary? was he there for, 
or against, the murderer? to concur, or 
to oppose ? to favor, or to thwart ? Did 
the perpetrator know he was there, there 
waiting ? If so, then it follows that he 
was there by appointment. He was at 
the post half an hour; he was waiting 
for somebody. This proves appoint- 
ment, arrangement, previous agreement ; 
then it follows that he was there to aid, 
to encourage, to embolden the perpetra- 
tor; and that is enough. If he were in 
such a situation as to afford aid, or that 
he was relied u))on for aid, then he was 
aiding and abetting. It is enough that 
the conspirator desired to have him 
there. Besides, it may be well said, that 
he could afford just as much aid there as 
if he had been in Essex Street, as if he 
had been standing even at the gate, or 
at the window. It was not an act of 
power against power that was to be done ; 
it was a secret act, to be done by stealth. 
The aid was to be placed in a position 
secure from observation. It was impor- 
tant to the security of both that he 
should be in a lonely place. Xow it is 
obvious that there are many purposes 



for which he might be in Brown 
Street. 

1. Richard Crowninshield might have 
been secreted in the garden, and wait- 
ing for a signal : 

2. Or he might be in Brown Street to 
advise him as to the time of making his 
entry into the house ; 

3. Or to favor his escape; 

4. Or to see if the street was clear 
when he came out; 

5. Or to conceal the weapon or the 
clothes ; 

6. To be ready for any unforeseen 
contingency. 

Richard Crowninshield lived in Dan- 
vers. He would retire by the most se- 
cret way. Brown Street is that way. 
If you find him there, can you doubt 
why he was there? 

If, Gentlemen, the prisoner went into 
Brown Street, by appointment with the 
perpetrator, to render aid or encourage- 
ment in any of these ways, he was pres- 
ent^ in legal contemplation, aiding and 
abetting in this murder. It is not 
necessary that he should have done any 
thing; it is enough that he was ready to 
act, and in a place to act. If his being 
in Brown Street, by appointment, at the 
time of the murder, emboldened the 
purpose and encom-aged the heart of the 
murderer, by the hope of instant aid, if 
aid should become necessary, then, with- 
out doubt, he was present, aiding and 
abetting, and was a principal in the 
murder. 

I now proceed. Gentlemen, to the con- 
sideration of the testimony of Mr. 
Colman. Although this evidence bears 
on every material part of the cause, I 
have purposely avoided every comment 
on it till the present moment, when I 
have done with the other evidence in the 
case. As to the admission of this evi- 
dence, there has been a great struggle, 
and its importance demanded it. The 
general rule of law is, that confessions 
are to be received as evidence. They 
are entitled to great or to little consid- 
eration, according to the circumstances 
under which they are made. Voluntary, 
deliberate confessions are the most im- 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



221 



portant and satisfactory evidence, but 
confessions hastily made, or improperly 
obtained, are entitled to little or no con- 
sideration. It is always to be inquired, 
whether they were purely voluntary, or 
were made under any undue influence 
of hope or fear; for, in general, if any 
influence were exerted on the mind of 
the person confessing, such confessions 
are not to be submitted to a jury. 

Who is Mr. Colman ? He is an intelli- 
gent, accurate, and cautious witness; a 
gentleman of high and well-known char- 
acter, and of unquestionable veracity; 
as a clergyman, highly respectable; as 
a man, of fair name and fame. 

Why was Mr. Colman with the pris- 
oner? Joseph J. Knapp was his parish- 
ioner; he M'as the head of a family, and 
had been married by Mr. Colman. The 
interests of that family were dear to him. 
He felt for their afflictions, and was 
anxious to alleviate their sufferings. He 
went from the purest and best of mo- 
tives to visit Joseph Knapp. He came 
to save, not to destroy; to rescue, not 
to take away life. In this family he 
thought there might be a chance to save 
one. It is a misconstruction of ^Ir. 
Colman's motives, at once the most 
strange and the most uncharitable, a 
perversion of all just views of his con- 
duct and intentions the most unaccount- 
able, to represent him as acting, on this 
occasion, in hostility to any one, or as 
desirous of injuring or endangering any 
one. He has stated his own motives, 
and his own conduct, in a manner to 
command universal belief and universal 
respect. For intelligence, for consist- 
ency, for accuracy, for caution, for can- 
dor, never did witness acquit himself 
better, or stand fairer. In all that he 
did as a man, and all he has said as a 
witness, he has shown himself worthy of 
entire regard. 

Now, Gentlemen, very important con- 
fessions made by the prisoner are sworn 
to by Mr. Colman. They were made in 
the prisoner's cell, where Mr. Colman 
had gone with the prisoner's brother, 
N. Phippen Knapp. Whatever conver- 
sation took place was in the presence of 
N. P. Knapp. Now, on the part of the 



prisoner, two things are asserted; first, 
that such inducements were suggested to 
the prisoner, in this interview, that no 
confessions made by him ought to be 
received; second, that, in point of fact, 
he made no such confessions as Mr. 
Colman testifies to, nor, indeed, any 
confessions at all. These two proposi- 
tions are attemj)ted to be supported by 
the testimony of N. P. Knapp. These 
two witnesses, Mr. Colman and N. P. 
Knapp, differ entirely. There is no 
possibility of reconciling them. No 
charity can cover both. One or the 
other has sworn falsely. If N. P. 
Knapp be believed, Mr. Colman's testi- 
mony must be wholly disregarded. It 
is, then, a question of credit, a question 
of belief between the two witnesses. 
As you decide between these, so you 
will decide on all this part of the case. 

Mr. Colman has given you a plain 
narrative, a consistent account, and has 
uniformly stated the same things. He 
is not contradicted, except by the testi- 
mony of Phippen Knapp. He is influ- 
enced, as far as we can see, by no 
bias, or prejudice, any more than other 
men, except so far as his character is 
now at stake. He has feelings on this 
point, doubtless, and ought to have. If 
what he has stated be not true, I cannot 
see any ground for his escape. If he be 
a true man, he must have heard what 
he testifies. No treachery of memory 
bi-ings to memory things that never took 
place. There is no reconciling his evi- 
dence with good intention, if the facta 
in it are not as lie states them. He is on 
trial as to his veracity. 

The relation in which the otlier wit- 
ness stands desei-ves your careful coiisi<l- 
eration. He is a meml)er of the family. 
He has the lives of two brothers do- 
pending, as he may think, on the effect 
of his evidence; depend) ug on every 
word he speaks. I hope lie has not an- 
other responsibility resting iq)on him. 
Hy the advice of a friend, ami that 
friend Mr. Colman, J. Knapp matle a 
full and free confes.sion, and obtained a 
promise of pardon. He has since, aa 
you know, probably by the advice of 
other friends, retracted that confession, 



222 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



and rejected the offered pardon. Events 
will show who of these friends and ad- 
visers advised him best, and befriended 
him most. In the mean time, if this 
brother, the witness, be one of these 
advisers, and advised the retraction, he 
has, most emphatically, the lives of his 
brothers resting upon his evidence and 
upon his conduct. Compare the .situa- 
tion of these two witnesses. Do you 
not see mighty motive enough on the 
one side, and want of all motive on the 
other? I would gladly find an apology 
for that witness, in his agonized feel- 
ings, in his distressed situation ; in the 
agitation of that hour, or of this. I 
"would gladly impute it to error, or to 
want of recollection, to confusion of 
mind, or disturbance of feeling. I 
would gladly impute to any pardonable 
source that which cannot be reconciled 
to facts and to truth ; but, even in a case 
calling for so much sympathy, justice 
must yet prevail, and we must come to 
the conclusion, how^ever reluctantly, 
which that demands from us. 

It is said, Phippen Knapp was prob- 
ably correct, because he knew he should 
probably be called as a witness. Wit- 
ness to what? When he says there was 
no confession, what could he expect to 
bear witness of? But I do not put it on 
the ground that he did not hear; I am 
compelled to put it on the other ground, 
that he did hear, and does not now truly 
tell what lie heard. 

If Mr. Colman were out of the case, 
there are other reasons why the story of 
Phippen Knapp should not be believed. 
It has in it inherent improbabilities. It 
is unnatural, and inconsistent with the 
accompanying circumstances. He tells 
you that tfiey went " to tlie cell of Frank, 
to see if he had any objection to taking 
a trial, and suffering his brother to 
accept the offer of pardon"; in other 
words, to obtain Frank's consent to Jo- 
seph's making a confession ; and in case 
this consent was not obtained, that the 
pardon would be offered to Frank. Did 
they bandy about the chance of life, be- 
tween these two, in this way? Did Mr. 
Colman, after having given this pledge 
to Joseph, and after having received a 



disclosure from Joseph, go to the cell of 
Frank for such a purpose as this? It is 
impossible; it cannot be so. 

Again, we know that Mr. Colman 
found the club the next day; that he 
went directly to the place of deposit, 
and found it at the first attempt, exactly 
where he says he had been informed it 
was. Now Phippen Knapp says, that 
Frank had stated nothing respecting the 
club; that it was not mentioned in that 
conversation. He says, also, that he 
was present in the cell of Joseph all the 
time that Mr. Colman was there; that 
he believes he heard all that was said in 
Joseph's cell; and that he did not him- 
self know where the club was, and never 
had known where it was, until he heard 
it stated in court. Now it is certain 
that Mr. Colman says he did not learn 
the particular place of deposit of the 
club from Joseph ; that he only learned 
from him that it was deposited under 
the steps of the Howard Street meeting- 
house, without defining the particular 
steps. It is certain, also, that he had 
more knowledge of the position of the 
club than this; else how could he have 
placed his hand on it .so readily? and 
where else could he have obtained this 
knowledge, except from Frank? 

Here Mr. Dexter said that Mr. Colman 
had had other interviews with Joseph, and 
might have derived the information from 
him at previous visits. Mr. Webster re- 
plied, that Mr. Colman had testified that he 
learned nothing in relation to the club until 
this visit. Mr. Dexter denied there being 
any such testimony. Mr. Colman's evi- 
dence was read, from the notes of the judges, 
and several other persons, and Mr. Webster 
then proceeded. 

My point is to show that Phippen 
Knapp's story is not true, is not consist- 
ent with itself; that, taking it for grant- 
ed, as he says, that he heard all that was 
said to Mr. Colma.n in both cells, by Jo- 
seph and by Frank ; and that Joseph did 
not state particularly where the club was 
deposited; and that he knew as much 
about the place of deposit of the club as 
Mr. Colman knew; why, then Mr. Col- 
man must either have been miraculously 
informed respecting the club, or Phippen 






THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



223 



Knapp has not told you the whole truth. 
There is no recpnciling this, without 
supposing that i\Ir. Cohnan has misrei> 
resented what took place iutloseph's cell, 
as well as what took place in Frank's cell. 

Again, Phippen Knapp is directly 
contradicted by ^Ir. Wheatland. Mr. 
Wheatland tells the same story, as com- 
ing from Phippen Knapp, that Colman 
now tells. Here there are two against 
one. Phippen Knapp says that Frank 
made no confessions, and that he said 
he had none to make. In this he is con- 
tradicted by Wheatland. lie, Phi^jpen 
Knapp, told Wheatland, that Mr. Col- 
man did ask Frank some questions, and 
that Frank answered them. He told him 
also what these answers were. Wheat- 
land does not recollect the questions or 
answers, but recollects his reply; which 
was, "Is not this premature? I think 
this answer is sufficient to make Frank 
a principal." Here Phippen Knapp 
opposes himself to Wheatland, as well as 
to Mr. Colman. Do you believe Phip- 
pen Knapp against these two respectable 
witnesses, or them against him? 

Is not Mr. Colman's testimony credi- 
ble, natural, and proper? To judge of 
this, you must go back to that scene. 

The murder had been committed ; the 
two Knapps were now arrested; four 
persons were already in jail supposed to 
be concerned in it, the Crowninshields, 
and Selman, and Chase. Another per- 
son at the Eastward was supposed to be 
in the plot ; it was important to learn the 
facts. To do this, some one of those 
suspected must be admitted to turn 
state's witness. The contest was. Who 
should have this privilege? It was un- 
derstood that it was about to be offered 
to Palmer, then in Maine; there was no 
good reason why he should have the 
preference. Mr. Colman felt interested 
for the family of the Knapps, and par- 
ticularly for Joseph. He was a young 
man who had hitherto maintained a fair 
standing in .society; he was a husband. 
Mr. Colman was particularly intimate 
with his family. With these views he 
went to the prison. He believed that 
he might safely converse with the jiris- 
oner, because he thought confessions 



made to a clergyman were sacred, and 
that he could not be called upon to dis- 
close them. He went, the first time, in 
the morning, and was requested to come 
again. He went again at three o'clock; 
and was requested to call again at five 
o'clock. In the mean time he saw the 
father and Phippen, and they wished he 
would not go again, because it would be 
said the prisoners were making confes- 
sion. He said he had engaged to go 
again at five o'clock; but would not, if 
Phippen would excuse him to Joseph. 
Phippen engaged to do this, and to meet 
him at his office at five o'clock. Mr. 
Colman went to the office at the time, 
and waited; but, as Phippen was not 
there, he walked down street, and saw 
him coming from the jail. He met 
him, and while in conversation near the 
church, he saw Mrs. Beckford and Mrs. 
Knapp going in a chaise towards the 
jail. He hastened to meet them, as he 
thought it not proper for them to go in 
at that time. While conversing with 
them near the jail, he received two 
distinct messages fi'om Joseph, that he 
wished to see him. He thought it proper 
to go; and accordingly went to Joseph's 
cell, and it was while there that the dis- 
closures were made. Before Joseph had 
finished his statement, Phippen came to 
the door; he was soon alter admitted. 
A short interval ensued, and they went 
together to the cell of Fiank. ^Mr. Col- 
man went in by invitation of Phippen; 
he had come directly from the cell of 
Joseph, where he had for the first time 
learned the incidents of the tragedy. 
He was incredulous as to some of the 
facts which he had learned, they were 
so different from his previous impres- 
sions. He was desirous of knowing 
whether he could place confitlence in 
what Jo.seph had told him. He, there- 
fore, put the questions to Frank, as he 
has testified before you; in answer to 
which Frank Knapp informed him, — 

1. " That the murder took place be- 
tween ten and eleven o'clock." 

2. •' That Richard Crowninshield was 
alone in the house." 

3. " That he, Frank Knapp, went 
home afterwards." 



224 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



4. " That the club was deposited 
under the steps of the Howard Street 
meeting-liouse, and under the part near- 
est the burying-ground, in a rat hole." 

5. "That the dagger or daggers had 
been worked up at the factoiy." 

It is said that these five answers just 
fit the case; that they are just what 
was wanted, and neither more nor less. 
True, they are; but the reason is, be- 
cause truth always fits. Truth is always 
congruous, and agrees with itself: every 
trutJLin the uniy.erse_ agrees with every 
other truth in the universe; whereas 
falsehoods not only disagree with truths, 
but usually quarrel among themselves. 
Surely Mr. Colman is influenced by no 
bias, no prejudice; he has no feelings to 
warp him, except, now that he is con- 
tradicted, he may feel an interest to be 
believed. 

If you believe Mr. Colman, then the 
evidence is fairly in the case. 

I shall now proceed on the ground 
that you do believe Mr. Colman. 

When told that Joseph had deter- 
mined to confess, the defendant said, " It 
is hard, or luifair, that Joseph should 
have the benefit of confessing, since the 
thing was done for his benefit." What 
thing was done for his benefit? Does 
not this carry an implication of the guilt 
of the defendant? Does it not show 
that he had a knowledge of the object 
and history of the murder? 

The defendant said, " I told Joseph, 
when he proposed it, that it was a silly 
business, and would get us into trouble." 
He knew, then, what this business was; 
he knew that Joseph proposed it, and 
that he agreed to it, else he could not 
get W.S- into trouble; he understood its 
bearing and its consequences. Thus 
much was said, under circumstances 
that make it clearly evidence against 
him, before there is any pretence of an 
inducement held out. And does not 
this prove him to have had a knowledge 
of the conspiracy? 

He knew the daggers had been de- 
stroyed, and he knew who committed 
the murder. How could he have inno- 
cently known these facts? Why, if by 
Richard's story, this shows him guilty 



of a knowledge. of the murder, and of 
the conspiracy. More than all, he knew 
when the deed was done, and that he 
went home afterwards. This shows his 
participation in that deed. " Went home 
afterwards " ! Home, from what scene? 
home, from what fact? home, fi-om what 
transaction? home, from what place? 
This confirms the supposition that the 
prisoner was in Brown Street for the 
purposes ascribed to him. These ques- 
tions were directly put, and directly 
answered. He does not intimate that 
he received the information from an- 
other. iSTow, if he knows the time, and 
went home afterwards, and does not ex- 
cuse himself, is not this an admission 
that he had a hand in this murder? 
Already proved to be a conspirator in 
the murder, he now confesses that he 
knew who did it, at what time it was 
done, that he was himself out of his own 
house at the time, and went home after- 
wards. Is not this conclusive, if not 
explained? Then comes the club. He 
told where it was. This is like posses- 
sion of stolen goods. He is charged 
with the guilty knowledge of this con- 
cealment. He must show, not say, how 
he came by this knowledge. If a man 
be found with stolen goods, he must 
prove how he came by them. The j^lace 
of deposit of the club was premedi- 
tated and selected, and he knew where 
it was. 

Joseph Knapp was an accessory, and 
an accessory only ; he knew only what 
was told him. But the prisoner knew 
the particular spot in which the club 
might be found. This shows his knowl- 
edge something more than that of an 
accessory. This presumption must be 
rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong 
against him. He has too much knowl- 
edge of this transaction to have come 
innocently by it. It must stand against 
him until he explains it. 

This testimony of Mr. Colman is rep- 
resented as new matter, and therefore 
an attemj^t has been made to excite a 
prejudice against it. It is not so. How 
little is there in it, after all, that did 
not appear from other sources? It is 
mainly confirmatory. Compare what 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



225 



you learn from this confession with what 
you before knew. 

As to its being proposed by Joseph, was 
not that known? 

As to J|Jchard's being alone in the 
house, was not that known? 

As to the daggers, was not that 
known? 

As to the time of the murder, was 
not that known? 

As to his being out that night, was 
not that known? 

As to his returning afterwards, was 
not that known? 

As to tlie club, was not that known? 

So this information confirms what 
was known before, and fully confirms 
it. 

One word as to the interview between 
Mr. Colman and Phippen Knapp on the 
turnpike. It is said that Mr. Colman 's 
conduct in this matter is inconsistent with 
his testimony. There does not appear 
to me to be any inconsistency. He tells 
you tliat his object was to save Joseph, 
and to hurt no one, and least of all the 
prisoner at the bar. He had probably 
told Mr. White the substance of what 
he heard at the prison. He had 
probably told him that Frank confirmed 
what Joseph had confessed. He was 
unwilling to be the instrument of harm 
to Frank. He therefore, at the request 
of Phippen Knapp, wrote a note to Mr. 
White, requesting him to consider Jo- 
seph as authority for the information he 
had received. He tells you that this is 
the only thing he has to regret, as it 
may seem to be an evasion, as he doubts 
whether it was entirely correct. If it 
was an evasion, if it was a deviation, if 
it was an error, it was an error of mercy, 
an error of kindness, — an error that 
proves he had no liostility to the pris- 
oner at the bar. It does not in the 
least vary his testimony, or affect its 
correctness. Gentlemen, I look on tlie 
evidence of Mr. Colman as highly im- 
portant; not as brinijing into the cause 
new facts, but as confirming, in a very 
satisfactory manner, otiier evidence. It 
is incredible that he can be false, and 
tliat he is seeking the prisoner's life 
through false swearing. If he is true. 



it is incredible that the prisoner can be 
innocent. 

Gentlemen, I have gone througli with 
the evidence in this case, and liave en- 
deavored to state it plainly and fairly 
before you. I tiiink there are conclu- 
sions to be drawn from it, the accuracy 
of which you cannot doubt. I think 
you cannot doubt that there was a 
con.spiracy formed for the purpose of 
connnitting this murder, and who the 
conspirators were : 

That you cannot doubt that the 
Crowninshields and the Knapps were 
the parties in this conspiracy: 

That you cannot doubt that the pris- 
oner at the bar knew that the murder 
was to be done on the night of the Gth 
of April: 

That you cannot doubt that the mur- 
derers of Captaih White were the suspi- 
cious persons seen in and about Brown 
Street on that night: 

That you cannot douW; that Richard 
Crowninshield was tiie peqietrator of 
that crime: 

That you cannot doubt that the pris- 
oner at the bar was in Brown Street on 
that night. « 

If there, then it must be by agree- 
ment, to countenance, to aid the perpe- 
trator. And if so, then he is guilty as 
Principal. 

Gentlemen, your whole concern should 
be to do your duty, and leave consequen- 
ces to take care of themselves. You 
^4 receive the law from the court. 
Your verdict, it is true, may endanger 
the prisoner's life, but tlien it is to 
save other lives. If the piisoner's guilt 
has been shown and proved beyond all 
reasonable doubt, you will convict him. 
If such reasonable doubts of guilt still 
remain, you will acquit him. You are 
the judges of the whole case. You owe 
a duty to the public, as well as to the pris- 
oner at the bar. You cannot presume 
to be wiser than the law. Your duty 
is a plain, straightforward one. 1 )oul>t- 
less we would all judge him in mercy. 
Towards him, a.s an individual, th** law 
inculcates no hostility; but towanls him, 
if proved to be a murderer, the law, and 



15 



226 



THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 



the oaths you have taken, and public 
justice, demand that you do your duty. 

With consciences satisfied with tlie 
discharge of duty, no consequences can 
liarm you. There is no evil that we 
cannot either face or fly from, but the 
consciousness of duty disregarded. A 
sense of duty pursues us ever. It is om- 
nipresent, like the Deity. If we take to 
ourselves the wings of the morning, and 
dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 
duty performed, or duty violated, is still 
•with us, for our happiness or our mis- 



ery. If we say the darkness shall coyer 
us, in the darkness as in the light our 
obligations are yet with us. We can- 
not escape their power, nor fly from their 
presence. They are with us in this life, 
will be with us at its close ; and in that 
scene of inconceivable solemnity, which 
lies yet farther onward, we shall still 
find ourselves surrounded by the con- 
sciousness of duty, to pain us wherever 
it has been violated, and to console us 
so far as God may have given us grace 
to perform it. 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



SECOND SPEECH ON "FOOT'S RESOLUTION," DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF 
THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 26th AND 27th OF JANUARY, 1830. 



[Mr. Webster having completed on Jan- 
uary 20th liis first speech ou Foot's resolu- 
tion, Mr. Benton spoke in reply, on the 
20th and 21st of January, 1830. Mr. Hayne 
of South Carolina followed on the same 
side, but, after some time, gave way for a 
motion for adjournment. On Monday, the 
25th, Mr. Hayne resumed, and concluded 
his argument. Mr. Webster immediately 
rose in reply, but yielded the floor for a 
motion for adjournment. 

The next day (2Gth January, 1830) Mr. 
Webster took the floor and delivered the 
following speech, which has given such 
great celebrity to the debate. The circum- 
stances connected with this remarkable ef- 
fort of jtarliamentary eloquence are vividly 
set forth in Mr. Everett's Memoir, prefixed to 
tlie first volume of Mr. Webster's Works.] 

Mr. President, — When the mari- 
ner has been tossed for many days in 
thick weather, and on an unknown sea, 
he naturally avails himself of the first 
pause in the storm, the earliest glance 
of the sun, to take his latitude, and as- 
certain how far the elements have driven 
liini from his true course. Let us imi- 
tate tliis prudence, and, before we float 
farther on the waves of this debate, refer 
to the point from which we departed, 
that we may at least be able to conjecture 
where we now are. I ask for the reading 
of the resolution before the Senate. 

The Secretary read the resolution, as 
follows : — 

"Rfsolvfd, That the Committee on Public 
Lands be instructed to inquire and report 
the quantity of public lands remaining un- 
sold witliin each State and Territory, and 
wliether it be expedient to limit for a cer- 
tain period the sales of the public lauds to 



such lands only as have heretofore been 
offered for sale, and are now subject to 
entry at the mininunn price. And, also, 
whether the otRce of Surveyor-General, and 
some of the land oflices, may not be abol- 
ished without detriment to the public inter- 
est ; or wliether it be expedient to adopt 
measures to hasten tlie sales and extend 
more rapidly the surveys of the public 
lands." 

We have thus heard. Sir, what the 
resolution is which is actually before us 
for consideration; and it will readily 
occur to every one, that it is almost the 
only subject about which something has 
not been said in the speech, running 
through two days, by which the Senate 
has been entertained by tlie gentleman 
from South Carolina. Every topic in 
the Vv'ide range of our public attairs, 
whether pastor present, — everything, 
general or local, whether belonging to 
national politics or party politics, — 
seems to have attracted more or less of 
the honorable member's attention, save 
only the resolution before the Senate. 
He has spoken of every thing but the 
public lands; they have escaped his no- 
tice. To that subject, in all his excur- 
sions, he has not paid even the cold 
re.sjiect of a passing glance. 

When this debate. Sir, was to be re- 
sumed, on Thursday morning, it so 
happened that it would have beeu con- 
venient for me to be elsewhere. The 
honorable member, however, did not 
incline to put off the dLscussion to an- 
other day. He had a .shot, he said, to 
return, and he wi.shed to discharge it. 



228 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



That shot, Sir, which he thus kindly in- 
formed lis was coining, that we might 
stand out of the way, or prepare our- 
selves to fall by it and die with decency, 
has now been received. Under all ad- 
vantages, and with expectation awa- 
kened by the tone which preceded it, it 
has been discharged, and has spent its 
force. It may become me to say no 
more of its effect, than that, if nobody 
is found, after all, either killed or 
wounded, it is not the first time, in the 
history of human affairs, that the vigor 
and success of the war have not quite 
come up to the lofty and sounding phrase 
of the manifesto. 

The gentleman. Sir, in declining to 
postpone the debate, told the Senate, 
with the emphasis of his hand upon his 
heart, that there was something ran- 
kling here^ which he wished to relieve. 
[Mr. Ilayne rose, and disclaimed having 
used the word rankling.'] It would not, 
Mr. President, be safe for the honorable 
member to appeal to those around him, 
upon the question whether he did in 
fact make use of that word. But he 
may have been unconscious of it. At 
any rate, it is enough that he disclaims 
it. But still, with or without the use 
of that particular word, he had yet 
something here, he said, of which he 
wished to rid himself by an immediate 
reply. In this respect. Sir, I have a 
great advantage over the honorable gen- 
tleman. There is nothing Aere, Sir, 
which gives me the slightest uneasiness; 
neither fear, nor anger, nor that which 
is sometimes more troublesome than 
either, the consciousness of having been 
in the wrong. There is nothing, either 
originating here, or now received here 
by the gentleman's shot. Nothing origi- 
nating here, for I had not the slightest 
feeling of unkindness towards the hon- 
orable member. Some passages, it is 
true, had occurred since our acquaint- 
ance in tliis body, which I could have 
wished might have been otherwise; but 
I had used philosophy and forgotten 
them. I paid the honorable member 
the attention of listening with respect to 
his first speech; and when he sat down, 
though surprised, and I must even say 



astonished, at some of his opinions, 
nothing was farther from my intention 
than to commence any personal warfare. 
Through the whole of the few remarks 
I made in answer, I avoided, studiously 
and carefully, every thing which I 
thought possible to be construed into 
disrespect. And, Sir, while there is 
thus nothing originating here which I 
have wished at any time, or now wish, 
to discharge, I must repeat, also, that 
nothing has been received here which 
rankles, or in any way gives me annoy- 
ance. I will not accuse the honorable 
member of violating the rules of civilized 
war; I will not say, that he poisoned his 
arrows. But whether his shafts were, 
or were not, dipped in that which would 
have caused rankling if they had reached 
their destination, there was not, as it 
happened, quite strength enough in the 
bow to bring them to their mark. If 
he wishes now to gather up those shafts, 
he must look for them elsewhere; they 
will not be found fixed and quivering in 
the object at which they were aimed. 

The honorable member complained 
that I had slept on his speech. I must 
have slept on it, or not slept at all. The 
moment the honorable member sat down, 
his friend from Missouri rose, and, with 
much honeyed commendation of the 
speech, suggested that the impressions 
which it had produced were too charm- 
ing and delightful to be disturbed by 
other sentiments or other sounds, and 
proposed that the Senate should adjourn. 
Would it have been quite amiable in 
me, Sir, to interrupt this excellent good 
feeling? Must I not have been abso- 
lutely malicious, if I could have thrust 
myself forward, to destroy sensations 
thus pleasing ? Was it not much better 
and kinder, both to sleep upon them 
myself, and to allow others also the 
pleasure of sleeping upon them? But 
if it be meant, by sleeping upon his 
speech, that I took time to prepare a 
reply to it, it is quite a mistake. Ow- 
ing to other engagements, I could not 
employ even the interval between the 
adjournment of the Senate and its meet- 
ing the next morning, in attention to 
the subject of this debate. Neverthe- 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



229 



less, Sir, the mere matter of fact is 
undoubtedly true. I did sleep on the 
gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. 
And I slept equally well on his speecii 
of yesterday, to which I am now reply- 
ing. It is quite possible that in this 
respect, also, I possess some advantage 
over the honorable member, attributa- 
ble, doubtless, to a cooler temperament 
on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon 
his speeches remarkably well. 

But the gentleman inquires why he 
was made tlie object of such a reply. 
\\'hy was he singled out '? If an attack 
has been made on the East, he, he as- 
sures us, did not begin it; it was made 
by the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, 
1 answered the gentleman's sjjeech be- 
cause I happened to hear it; and because, 
also, I chose to give an answer to that 
speech, which, if unanswered, I thought 
most likely to produce injurious impres- 
sions. I did not stop to incjuire who 
was the original drawer of the bill. I 
found a responsible indorser before me, 
and it was my purpose to hold him lia- 
ble, and to bring him to his just respon- 
sibility, without delay. But, 8ii', this 
interrogatory of the honorable member 
was only introductory to another. lie 
proceeded to ask me whether I had 
turned upon him, in this debate, from 
the consciousness that I should find an 
overmatch, if 1 ventured on a contest 
with his friend from Missouri. If, Sir, 
the honorable member, modestice gratia, 
had chosen thus to defer to his friend, 
and to pay him a compliment, without 
intentional disparagement to others, it 
would have been quite according to the 
friendly courtesies of debate, and not at 
all ungrateful to my own feelings. 1 
am not one of those, Sir, who esteem 
any tribute of regard, whether light and 
occasional, or more serious and delib- 
erat ', wliich may be bestowed on others, 
as so much unjustly withholdi-n from 
themselves. But the tone And manner 
of the gentleman's question forbid me 
thus to interpret it. 1 am not at liberty 
to consider it as nothing more than a 
civility to his friend. It had an air 
of taunt and disparagement, something 
of the loftiness of asserted superiority. 



which does not allow me to pass it over 
without notice. It was put as a ques- 
tion for me to answer, and so put as 
if it were difficult for me to answer, 
whether I deemed the member from 
Missouri an overmatch for my.self in 
debate here. It seems to me. Sir, that 
this is extraordinary language, and au 
extraordinary tone, for the discussions 
of this body. 

^latches and overmatches ! Tliose 
terms are more applicable elsewhere 
than here, and fitter for other assem- 
blies than this. Sir, the gentleman 
seems to forget where and wliat we are. 
This is a Senate, a Senate of equals, of 
men of individual honor and pei'sonal 
character, and of absolute independence. 
We know no masters, we acknowledge 
no dictators. This is a hall for mutual 
consultation and discussion ; not an are- 
na for the exhibition of champions. I 
offer myself, Sir, as a match for no man; 
I throw the challenge of debate at no 
man's feet. But then, Sir, since the 
honorable member has put the question 
in a manner that calls for an answer, I 
will give him an answer; and I tell him, 
that, holding myself to be the humblest 
of the members here, I yet know noth- 
ing in the arm of his friend from Mis- 
souri, either alone or when aided by the 
arm of his friend from South Carolina, 
that need deter even me from espousing 
whatever opinions I may choose to es- 
pouse, from debating whenever I may 
choose to debate, or from .speaking what- 
ever I may see fit to say, on the tioor of 
the Senate. Sir, when uttered as mat- 
ter of commendation or conqjlinnMit, I 
.should dissent from nothing which the 
honorable member might say of his 
friend. Still less do I put forth any 
pretensions of my own. But wlien put 
to me as matter of taunt, I tiirow it 
back, and say to the gentleman, that ho 
could possibly say nothing le.ss likely 
tlian such a comparison to wound my 
pride of personal ciiaracter. The anger 
of its tone rescued the remark from 
intentional irony, which otherwise, prob- 
ably, would have been its general accep- 
tation. But, Sir, if it be imagined that 
by this mutual quotation and comnieu- 



230 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



dation; if it be supposed that, by cast- 
ing the characters of the drama, assign- 
ing to each his part, to one the attack, 
to another the cry of onset; or if it be 
thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt 
of anticipated victory, any laurels are to 
be won here; if it be imagined, espe- 
cially, that any or all these things will 
shake any purpose of mine, — I can tell 
the honorable member, once for all, that 
he is greatly mistaken, and that he is 
dealing with one of whose temper and 
character he has yet much to learn. 
Sir, I shall not allow myself, on this 
occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be 
betrayed into any loss of temper; but if 
provoked, as I trust I never shall be, into 
crimination and recrimination, the hon- 
orable member may perhaps find, that, 
in that contest, there will be blows to 
take as well as blows to give ; that others 
can state comparisons as significant, at 
least, as his own, and that his impunity 
may possibly demand of him whatever 
powers of taunt and sarcasm he may 
possess. I commend him to a prudent 
husbandry of his resources. 

But, Sir, the Coalition! The Coali- 
tion! Ay, "the murdered Coalition!" 
The gentleman asks, if I were led or 
frighted into this debate by the spectre 
of the Coalition. " Was it the ghost of 
the murdered Coalition," he exclaims, 
"which haunted the member from Mas- 
sachusetts; and which, like the ghost of 
Banquo, would never down? " " The 
murdered Coalition!" Sir, this charge 
of a coalition, in reference to the late 
administration, is not original with the 
honorable member. It did not spring 
up in the Senate. Whether as a fact, 
as an argument, or as an embellishment, 
it is all borrowed. He adopts it, in- 
deed, from a very low origin, and a still 
lower present condition. It is one of 
the thousand calumnies with which the 
press teemed, during an excited political 
canvass. It was a charge, of which 
there was not otily no proof or proba- 
bility, but whicli was in itself wholly 
impossible to be true. No man of com- 
mon information ever believed a syllable 
of it. Yet it was of that class of false- 
hoods, which, by continued repetition, 



through all the organs of detraction and 
abuse, are capable of misleading those 
who are already far misled, and of fur- 
ther fanning passion already kindling 
into flame. Doubtless it served in its 
day, and in greater or less degree, the 
end designed by it. Having done that, 
it has sunk into the general mass of 
stale and loathed calumnies. It is the 
xerj cast-off slough of a polluted and 
shameless press. Incapable of further 
mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless 
and despised. It is not now, Sir, in the 
power of the honorable member to give 
it dignity or decency, by attempting to 
elevate it, and to introduce it into the 
Senate. He cannot change it from what 
it is, an object of general disgust and 
scorn. On the contrary, the contact, if 
he choose to touch it, is more likely to 
drag him down, down, to the place 
where it lies itself. 

But, Sir, the honorable member was 
not, for other reasons, entirely happy in 
his allusion to the story of Banquo's 
murder and Banquo's ghost. It was 
not, I think, the friends, but the ene- 
mies of the murdered Banquo, at whose 
bidding his spirit would not down. The 
honorable gentleman is fresh in his read- 
ing of the English classics, and can put 
me right if I am wrong ; but, according 
to my poor recollection, it was at those 
who had begun with caresses and ended 
with foul and treacherous murder that 
the gory locks were shaken. The ghost 
of Banquo, like that of Hamlet, was an 
honest ghost. It disturbed no innocent 
man. It knew where its appearance 
would strike terror, and who would cry 
out, A ghost ! It made itself visible in 
the right quarter, and compelled the 
guilty and the conscience-smitten, and 
none others, to start, with, 

"Pr'vthee, see there! behold! — look! lo, 
If I stand here, I saw him! " 

Their eyeballs were seared (was it not 
so, Sir?) who had thought to shield 
themselves by concealing their own 
hand, and laying the imputation of the 
crime on a low and hireling agency in 
wickedness ; who had vainly attempted 
to stifle the workings of their own cow- 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



231 



ard consciences by ejaculating through 
white lips and chattering teeth, " Thou 
canst not say I did iti " I have misread 
the great poet if those who had no way 
partaken in the deed of the death, either 
found that they were, or feared that theij 
should be, pushed from their stools by 
tiie ghost of the slain, or exclaimed to a 
spectre created by their own fears and 
their own remorse, "Avaunt! and quit 
our sight! " 

There is another particular. Sir, in 
which the honorable member's quick 
perception of resemblances might, I 
should think, have seen something in 
the story of Banquo, making it not alto- 
gether a subject of the most pleasant 
contemplation. Those who murdered 
Banquo, what did they win by it? Sub- 
stantial good? Permanent power? Or 
disappointment, rather, and sore morti- 
fication, — dust and ashes, the common 
fate of vaulting ambition overleaping 
itself? Did not even-handed justice ere- 
long commend the poisoned chalice to 
their own lips? Did they not soon find 
that for another they had "filed their 
mind"? that their ambition, though 
apparently for the moment successful, 
had but put a barren sceptre in their 
grasp? Ay, Sir, 

"a barren sceptre in their gripe, 
Thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, 
No son of theirs succeeding. ''^ 

Sir, I need pursue the allusion no 
farther. I leave the honorable gentle- 
man to run it out at his leisure, and to 
derive from it all the gratification it is 
calculated to administer. If he finds 
himself pleased with the associations, 
and prepared to be quite satisfied, 
though the parallel should be entirely 
completed, I had almost said, I am sat- 
isfied also; but that I shall think of. 
Yes, Sir, I will think of chat. 

In the course of my obser\'ations the 
other day, Mr. President, I paid a pass- 
ing tribute of respect to a very worthy 
man, Mr. Dane of Massachusetts. It 
so happened that he drew the Ordinance 
of 1787, for the government of the 
Northwestern Territory'. A man of so 
much ability, and so little j)retence ; of 



so great a capacity to do good, and so 
unmixed a disposition to do it for its 
own sake; a gentleman who had acted 
an important part, forty years ago, in a 
measure the influence of which is still 
deeply felt in the very matter which was 
the subject of debate, — might, I thought, 
receive from me a commendatory recog- 
nition. But the honorable member was 
inclined to be facetious on the subject. 
He was rather disposed to make it mat- 
ter of ridicule, that I had introduced 
into the debate the name of one Xathan 
Dane, of whom he assures us he had 
never before heard. Sir, if the honor- 
able member had never before heard of 
IMr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It shows 
him less acquainted with the public men 
of the country than I had supposed. 
Let me tell him, however, that a sneer 
from him at the mention of the name 
of Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may 
well be a high mark of ambition. Sir, 
either with the honorable gentleman or 
myself, to accomplish as much to make 
our names known to advantage, and re- 
membered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane 
has accomplished. But the truth is. 
Sir, I suspect, that Mr. Dane lives a 
little too far north. He is of JMassachu- 
setts, and too near the north star to be 
reached by the honorable gentleman's 
telescope. If his sphere had happened 
to range south of M; son and Dixon's 
line, he might, probably, have come 
within the scope of his vision. 

I spoke. Sir, of the Ordinance of 
1787, which prohibits slavery, in all 
future times, noiihwest of the Ohio, as 
a measure of great wisdom and fore- 
sight, and one which had been attended 
with highly beneficial and permanent 
consequences. I supposed that, on this 
point, no two gentlemen in the Senate 
could entertain diiferent opinions. But 
the simple expression of this sentiment 
has led the gentleman, not only into a 
labored defence of slavery, in the ab- 
stract, and on principle, but also into a 
warm accusation against me, as having 
attacked the system of domestic slavery 
now existing in the Southern States. 
For all this, there was not the slightest 
foundation, in any thing said or iuti- 



232 



THE RErLY TO HAYNE. 



mated by me. I did not utter a single 
word which any ingenuity could torture 
into an attack on the slavery of the 
South. 1 said, only, that it was highly 
wise and useful, in legislating for the 
Northwestern country wliile it was yet 
a wilderness, to prohibit tlie introduc- 
tion of slaves; and I added, that I pre- 
sumed there was no reflecting and intel- 
ligent person, in the neighboring State 
of Kentucky, who would doubt that, if 
the same prohibition had been extended, 
at the same early period, over that com- 
monwealth, her strength and population 
would, at this day, have been far gi-eater 
than they are. If these opinions be 
thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, 
I trust, neither extraordinary nor dis- 
respectful. They attack nobody and 
menace nobody. And yet. Sir, the gen- 
tleman's optics have discovered, even in 
the mere expression of this sentiment, 
wliat he calls the very spirit of the Mis- 
souri question! He represents me as 
making an onset on the whole South, 
and manifesting a spirit which would 
interfere with, and disturb, their domes- 
tic condition ! 

Sir, this injustice no otherwise sur- 
prises me, than as it is committed here, 
and committed without the slightest pre- 
tence of ground for it. I say it only 
surprises me as being done here; for I 
know full well, that it is, and has been, 
the settled policy of some persons in the 
South, for years, to represent the people 
of the North as disj)osed to interfere 
with them in their own exclusive and 
peculiar concerns. This is a delicate 
and .sensitive point in Southern feeling; 
and of late years it has always been 
touched, and generally with effect, 
whenever tlie object has been to unite 
the whole South against Northern men 
or Northern measures. This feeling, 
always carefully kept alive, and main- 
tained at too intense a heat to admit 
discrimination or reflection, is a lever of 
great power in our political machine. 
It moves vast bodies, and gives to them 
one and the same direction. But it is 
without adequate cause, and the suspi- 
cion which exists is wholly groundless. 
There is not, and never has been, a dis- 



position in the North to interfere with 
these interests of the South. Such in- 
terference has never been supposed to 
be within the power of government ; nor 
has it been in any way attempted. The 
slavery of the South has always been 
regarded as a matter of domestic j)olicy, 
left with the States themselves, and with 
which the Federal government had noth- 
ing to do. Certainly, Sir, I am, and ever 
have been, of that opinion. The gen- 
tleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in 
the abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly 
I need not say I differ with him, alto- 
gether and most widely, on that point. 
I regard domestic slavery as one of the 
greatest evils, both moral and political. 
But whether it be a malady, and whether 
it be curable, and if so, by what means; 
or, on the other hand, whether it be the 
vubius immedicahile of the social system, 
I leave it to those whose right and duty 
it is to inquire and to decide. And this 
I believe. Sir, is, and uniformly has 
been, the sentiment of the North. Let 
us look a little at the history of this 
matter. 

When the present Constitution was 
submitted for the ratification of the peo- 
ple, there were those who imagined that 
the powers of the government which it 
proposed to establish might, in some 
possible mode, be exerted in measures 
tending to the abolition of slavery. This 
suggestion would of course attract much 
attention in the Southern conventions. 
In that of Virginia, Governor Randolph 
said : — 

" I hope there is none here, who, con- 
sidering the subject in the calm light of 
philosophy, will make an objection dis- 
honorable to Virginia; that, at the mo- 
ment they are securing the rights of 
their citizens, an objection is started, 
that there is a spark of hope that those 
unfortunate men now held in bondage 
may, by the operation of the general 
government, be made free." 

At the very first Congress, petitions 
on the subject were presented, if I mis- 
take not, from different States. The 
Pennsylvania society for promoting the 
abolition of slavery took a lead, and laid 
before Congress a memorial, praying 



u 



THE REPLY TO ITAYNE. 



233 



Congress to promote the abolition by 
such powers as it possessed. This me- 
morial was referred, in the House of 
Representatives, to a select committee, 
consisting- of Mr. Foster of New Hamp- 
shire, Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Iluntinfiton of Connecticut, j\[r. Law- 
rence of New York, Mr. Sinnickson of 
New Jersey, Mr. Hartley of Pennsylva- 
nia, and Mr. Parker of Virginia, — all 
of them. Sir, as you will observe. North- 
ern men but the last. This committee 
made a report, which was referred to a 
committee of the whole House, and 
there considered and discussed for sev- 
eral days; and being amended, although 
without material alteration, it was made 
to express three distinct propositions, 
on the subject of slavery and the slave- 
trade. First, in the words of the Con- 
stitution, that Congress could not, prior 
to the year 1808, prohibit the migration 
or importation of such persons as any 
of the States then existing should think 
proper to admit ; and, secondly, that 
Congress had authority to restrain the 
citizens of the Ignited States from car- 
rying on the African slave-trade, for the 
purpose of supplying foreign countries. 
On this proposition, our early laws 
against those who engage in that traffic 
are founded. The third proposition, and 
that which bears on the present ques- 
tion, was expressed in the following 
terms : — 

" Resolved, That Congress have no 
authority to interfere in the emancipa- 
tion of slaves, or in the treatment of 
them in any of the States; it remaining 
with the several States alone to provide 
rules and regulations therein which hu- 
manity and true policy may require." 

Tins resolution received the sanction 
of the House of Representatives so early 
as March, 17!>0. And now. Sir, the 
honorable member will allow me to re- 
mind him, that not only were the select 
committee who reported the resolution, 
with a single exception, all Northern 
men, but also that, of the members then 
composing the House of Representa- 
tives, a large majority, I believe nearly 
two thirds, were Northern men also. 

The House agreed to insert these reso- 



lutions in its journal ; and from that day 
to this it has never been maintained or 
contended at the North, that Congress 
had any authority to regulate or inter- 
fere with the condition of slaves in the 
several States. No Northern gentle- 
man, to my knowledge, has moved any 
such question in either House of Con- 
gress. 

The fears of the Soutii, whatever fears 
they might have entertained, were al- 
layed and quieted by this early decis- 
ion ; and so remained till they were 
excited afresh, without cause, but for 
collateral and indirect pui-poses. When 
it became necessary, or was thought so, 
by some political persons, to find an 
uuvaryitig ground for the exclusion of 
Northern men from confidence and from 
lead in the affairs of the republic, then, 
and not till then, the cry was raised, and 
the feeling industriously excited, that 
the influence of Northern men in the 
public counsels would endanger the re- 
lation of master and slave. For myself, 
I claim no other merit than that this 
gross and enormous injustice towards 
the whole North has not wrought u|)on 
me to change my opinions or my politi- 
cal conduct. I hope I am above violat- 
ing my principles, even under the smart 
of injury and false imputations. Un- 
just suspicions and undeserved reproach, 
whatever pain I may experience from 
them, will not induce me, I trust, to 
overstep the limits of constitutional 
duty, or to encroach on the rights of 
others. The domestic slavery of the 
Southern States I leave where I find it, 
— in the hands of their own govern- 
ments. It is their affair, not mine. 
Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect 
which the magnitude of that population 
lias had in tlie distribution of power 
under this Federal government. Wo 
know. Sir, that the representation of 
the States in the other house is not 
equal. We know tliat great advantage 
in that respect is enjoyed by the slave- 
holding States; and we know, too, that 
the intended equivalent for that atlvan- 
tage, that is to say, the imposition of 
direct taxes in the same ratio, has be- 
come merely nominal, the habit of the 



234 



THE EEPLY TO HAYNE. 



government being almost invariably to 
collect its revenue from other sources 
and in other modes. Nevertheless, I 
do not complain; nor would I counte- 
nance any movement to alter this ar- 
rangement of representation. It is the 
original bargain, the compact ; let it 
stand ; let the advantage of it be fully 
enjoyed. The Union itself is too full 
of benefit to be htizarded in propositions 
for changing its original basis. I go for 
the Constitution as it is, and for the 
Union as it is. But I am resolved not 
to submit in silence to accusations, either 
against myself individually or against 
the North, wholly unfounded and un- 
just, — accusations which impute to us 
a disposition to evade the constitutional 
compact, and to extend the power of the 
government over the internal laws and 
domestic condition of the States. All 
such accusations, wherever and whenever 
made, all insinuations of the existence of 
any such purposes, I know and feel to be 
groundless and injurious. And we must 
confide in Southern gentlemen them- 
selv.^s ; we must trust to those whose in- 
tegrity of heart and magnanimity of feel- 
ing will lead them to a desire to maintain 
and disseminate truth, and who possess 
the means of its diffusion with the 
Southern public; we must leave it to 
them to disabuse that public of its prej- 
udices. But in the mean time, for my 
own part, I shall continue to act justly, 
whether those towards whom justice is 
exercised receive it with candor or vnth. 
contumely. 

Having had occasion to recur to the 
Ordinance of 1787, in order to defend 
myself against the inferences which the 
honorable member has chosen to draw 
from my former observations on that 
subject, I am not willing now, entirely 
to take leave of it w-ithout another re- 
mark. It need hardly be said, that that 
paper expresses just sentiments on the 
great subject of civil and religious 
liberty. Such sentiments were com- 
mon, and abound in all our state papers 
of that day. But this Ordinance did 
that which was not so common, and 
which is not even now universal; that is, 
it set forth and declared it to be a hi ah 



and binding duty of government itself 
to support schools and advance the means 
of education, on the plain reason that 
religion, morality, and knowledge are 
necessary to good government, and to th^' 
happiness of mankind. One observa- 
tion further. The important provision 
incorporated into the Constitution of the 
United States, and into several of those 
of the States, and recently, as we have 
seen, adopted into the reformed consti- 
tution of Virginia, restraining legisla- 
tive power in questions of private right, 
and from impairing the obligation of 
contracts, is first introduced and estab- 
lished, as far as I am informed, as matter 
of express written constitutional law, in 
this Ordinance of 1787. And I must 
add, also, in regard to the author of the 
Ordinance, who has not had the happi- 
ness to attract the gentleman's notice 
heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, 
that he was chairman of that select com- 
mittee of the old Congress, whose report 
first expressed the strong sense of that 
body, that the old Confederation was 
not adequate to the exigencies of the 
country, and recommended to the States 
to send delegates to the convention which 
formed the present Constitution. 

An attempt has been made to transfer 
from the North to the South the honor 
of this exclusion of slavery from the 
Northwestern Territory. The journal, 
without argument or comment, refutes 
such attempts. The cession by Virginia 
was made in March, 1784. On the 19th 
of April following, a committee, consist- 
ing of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and 
Howell, reported a plan for a temporary 
government of the territory, in which 
was this article: "That, after the year 
1800, there shall be neither slavery nor 
involuntary servitude in any of the said 
States, otherwise than in punishment of 
crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
convicted." Mr. Spaight of North Caro- 
lina moved to strike out this paragraph. 
The question was put, according to the 
form then practised, " Shall these words 
stand as a part of the plan? " Nev/ 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Isl- 
and, Connecticut, New York, New Jer- 
sey, and Pennsylvania, seven States, 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



235 



voted in the afRrmative ; Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, and South Carolina, in the nega- 
tive. North Carolina was divided. As 
the consent of nine States was necessary, 
the words could not stand, and were 
struck out accordingly. Mr. Jeiferson 
voted for the clause, but was overruled 
by his colleagues. 

In March of the next year (1785), Mr. 
King of Massachusetts, seconded by Mr. 
Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed the 
formerly rejected article, with this addi- 
tion: " And that this regulation shall be 
an article of compact, and remain a 
fundamental principle of the constitu- 
tions between the thirteen original 
States, and each of the States described 
in the resolve." On this clause, which 
provided the adequate and thorough 
security, the eight Xorthern States at 
that time voted affirmatively, and the 
four Southern States negatively. The 
votes of nine States were not yet obtained, 
and thus the provision was again rejected 
by the Southern States. The persever- 
ance of the North held out, and two 
years afterwards the object was attained. 
It is no derogation from the credit, what- 
ever that maybe, of drawing the Ordi- 
nance, that its principles had before been 
prepared and discussed, in the form of 
resolutions. If oije should reason in 
that way, what wcild become of the dis- 
tinguished honor of the author of the 
Declaration of Independence? There is 
not a sentiment in that paper which had 
not been voted and resolved in the as- 
semblies, and other popular bodies in the 
coimtry, over and over again. 

But the honorable member has now 
found out that this gentleman , Mr. Dane, 
was a member of the Hartford Conven- 
tion. However uninformed the honor- 
able member may be of characters and 
occurrences at the North, it would seem 
that he has at his elbow, on this occa- 
sion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, 
some magnanimous and true-hearted 
monitor, possessing the means of local 
knowledge, and ready to supply the 
honorable member with every thing, 
down even to forgotten and moth-eaten 
two-penny pamphlets, which may be 
used to the disadvantage of his own 



country. But as to the Hartford Con- 
vention, Sir, allow me to say, that the 
proceedings of that body seem now to 
be less read and studied in New I'^ngland 
than farther South. They appear to 
be looked to, not in New England, but 
elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how 
far they may serve a-s a precedent. But 
they will not answer the purpose, they 
are quite too tame. The latitude in 
which they originated was too cold. 
Other conventions, of more recent exist- 
ence, have gone a whole bar's length 
beyond it. The learned doctors of Colle- 
ton and Abbeville have pushed their 
commentaries on the Hartford collect so 
far, that the original text-writers are 
thrown entirely into the shade. I have 
nothing to do. Sir, with the Hartford 
Convention. Its journal, which the gen- 
tleman has quoted, I never read. So far 
as the honorable member may discover 
in its proceedings a spirit in any degree 
resembling that which was avowed and 
justified in those other conventions to 
which I have alluded, or so far as those 
proceedings can be shown to be disloyal 
to the Constitution, or tending to dis- 
union, so far I shall be as ready as any 
one to bestow on them rei^rehension and 
censure. 

Having dwelt long on this convention, 
and other occurrences of that day, in the 
hope, probably, (which will not be grati- 
fied,) that I should leave the course of 
this debate to follow him at length in 
those excursions, the honorable member 
returned, and attempt(!d another object. 
He referred to a speecli of mine in the 
other house, the same which I had occa- 
sion to allude to myself, the other day; 
and has quoted a passage or two from it, 
with a bold, though uneasy and labor- 
ing, air of confidence, as if he had de- 
tected in me an inconsistency. Judging 
from the gentleman's manner, a stranger 
to the course of the debate and to tlie 
point in discussion would liave imagined, 
from so triumphant a tone, that the hon- 
orable member was about to overwiiehu 
me with a manifest contradiction. Any 
one who heard liim, and who had not 
heard what I had, in fact, previously 
said, must have thouglit me routed and 



236 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



discomfited, as the gentleman had prom- 
ised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph 
away. 'J'here is not the slightest differ- 
ence in the purport of my remarks on 
the two occasions. What I said here on 
Wednesday is in exact accordance with 
the opinion expressed by me in the other 
house in 182.3. Though the gentleman 
had the metaphysics of Hudibras, though 

he were able 

" to sever and divide 
A hair 'twixt north and northwest side," 

he yet could not insert his metaphysical 
scissors between the fair reading of. my 
remarks in 1825, and what I said here 
last week. There is not only no contra- 
diction, no difference, but, in truth, too 
exact a similarity, both in thought and 
language, to be entirely in just taste. I 
had myself quoted the same speech ; had 
recurred to it, and spoke with it open 
before me ; and much of what I said was 
little more than a repetition from it. 
In order to make finishing work with 
this alleged contradiction, permit me to 
recur to the origin of this debate, and 
review its course. This seems expedi- 
ent, and may be done as well now as at 
any time. 

Well, then, its history is this. The 
honorable member from Connecticut 
moved a resolution, which constitutes 
the first branch of that which is now be- 
fore us; that is to say, a resolution, in- 
structing the committee on public lands 
to inquire into the expediency of limit- 
ing, for a certain period, the sales of the 
public lands, to such as have heretofore 
been offered for sale ; and whether sun- 
dry offices connected with the sales of 
the lands might not be abolished with- 
out detriment to the public service. In 
the progress of the discussion which 
arose on this resolution, an honorable 
member from New Hampshire moved to 
amend the resolution, so as entirely to 
reverse its object; that is, to strike it all 
out, and insert a direction to the com- 
mittee to inquire into the expediency of 
adopting measures to hasten the sales, 
and extend more rapidly the surveys, of 
tile lands. 

The honorable member from Maine ^ 
1 Mr. Sprague. 



suggested that both those propositions 
might well enough go for consideration 
to the committee; and in this state of 
the question, the member from South 
Carolina addressed the Senate in his 
first speech. He rose, he said, to give 
us his ovni free thoughts on the public 
lands. I saw him rise with pleasure, 
and listened with expectation, though 
before he concluded I was filled with 
surjirise. Certainly, I was never more 
surprised, than to find him following 
up, to the extent he did, the sentiments 
and opinions which the gentleman from 
Missouri had put forth, and which it is 
known he has long entertained. 

I need not repeat at large the general 
topics of the honorable gentleman's 
speech. When he said yesterday that 
he did not attack the Eastern States, he 
certainly must have forgotten, not only 
particular remarks, but the whole drift 
and tenor of his speech ; unless he means 
by not attacking, that he did not com- 
mence hostilities, but that another had 
preceded him in the attack. He, in the 
first place, disapproved of the whole 
course of the government, for forty 
years, in regard to its disposition of the 
public lands; and then, turning north- 
ward and eastward, and fancying he had 
found a cause for alleged narrowness 
and niggardliness in the " accursed pol- 
icy " of the tariff, to which he repre- 
sented the people of New England as 
wedded, he went on for a full hour with 
remarks, the whole scope of which was 
to exhibit the results of this policy, in 
feelings and in measures unfavorable to 
the West. I thought his opinions un- 
founded and erroneous, as to the general 
course of the government, and ventured 
to reply to them. 

The gentleman had remarked on the 
analogy of other cases, and quoted the 
conduct of European governments to- 
wards their own subjects settling on this 
continent, as in point, to show that we 
had been harsh and rigid in selling, when 
we should have given the public lands to 
settlers without price. I thought the 
honorable member had suffered his judg- 
ment to be betrayed by a false analogy ; 
that he was struck with an appearance 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



23T 



of resemblance where there was no real 
similitude. I think so still. The first 
.settlers of North America were enter- 
])rising spirits, engaged in private ad- 
venture, or fleeing from tyranny at 
liome. When arrived here, they were 
forgotten by the mother country, or re- 
membered only to be oppressed. Car- 
ried away again by the appearance of 
analogy, or struck with the eloquence of 
the passage, the honorable member yes- 
terday observed, that the conduct of 
tiovernment towards the Western emi- 
grants, or my representation of it, 
brought to his mind a celebrated speech 
in the British Parliament. It was, Sir, 
the speecli of Colonel Barre. On the 
(question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I 
forget which. Colonel Barre had heard a 
member on the treasury bench argue, 
that the people of the United States, be- 
ing British colonists, planted by the ma- 
ternal care, nourished by the iudidgence, 
and protected by the arms of England, 
would not grudge their mite to relieve 
the mother country from the heavy bur- 
den under which she groaned. The 
language of Colonel Barre, in reply to 
this, was: " They planted by your care? 
Your oppression planted them in Amer- 
ica. They fled from your tyranny, and 
grew by your neglect of them. So soon 
as you began to care for them, you 
showed your care by sending persons to 
spy out their liberties, misrepresent their 
character, prey upon them, and eat out 
their substance." 

And how does the honorable gentle- 
man mean to maintain, that language 
like this is applicable to the conduct of 
the government of the United States 
towards the Western emigrants, or to 
any representation given by me of that 
conduct? Were the settlers in the West 
driven thither by our oppression? Have 
they flourished only by our neglect of 
them? Has the government done noth- 
ing but prey upon them, and eat out 
their substance? Sir, this fervid elo- 
quence of the British speaker, just when 
and where it was uttered, and fit to re- 
main an exercise for the schools, is not 
a little out of place, when it is brought 
thence to be applied here to the conduct 



of our own country towards her own cit- 
izens. From America to England, it 
may be true; from Americans to their 
own government, it would be strange 
language. Let us leave it, to he recited 
and declaimed by our boys against a for- 
eign nation; not introduce it here, to 
recite and declaim ourselves against our 
own. 

But I come to the point of the al- 
leged contradiction. In my remarks on 
Wednesday, I contended that we could 
not give away gratuitously all the public 
lands; that we held them in trust; that 
the government had .solemnly pledged 
itself to dispose of them as a common 
fund for the common benefit, and to sell 
and settle them as its discretion should 
dictate. Xow, Sir, what contradiction 
does the gentleman find to this senti- 
ment in the speech of 18'2.3? He quotes 
me as having then said, that we ought 
not to hug these lands as a very great 
treasure. Very well, Sir, supposing me 
to be accurately reported in that expres- 
sion, what is the contradiction? I have 
not now said, that we should hug these 
lands as a favorite source of pecuniary 
income. No such thing. It is not my 
view. What I have said, and what I do 
say, is, that they are a common fund, to 
be disposed of for the common benefit, 
to be sold at low prices for the accom- 
modation of settlers, keeping the object 
of settling the lands <as much in view as 
that of raising money from them. This 
I say now, and this I have always said. 
Is this hugging them as a favorite tre;i.s- 
ure? Is there no difference between 
hugging and hoarding this fund, on the 
one hand, as a great treasure, and. on 
the other, of disposing of it at low i>rice8, 
placing the proceeds in the general treas- 
ury of the Union? My opinion is, that 
as much is to be made of the land im 
fairly and reasonably may be, selling it 
all the while at such rates as to give the 
fullest effect to settlement. This is not 
giving it all away to the States, as the 
gentleman would pn)pf)se; nor is it hug- 
ging the fund closely au.l teiuiciously, 
as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my 
judgment, a just and wise jKjlicy, [xt- 
fectly according with all the various du- 



238 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



ties which rest on government. So much 
for ray contradiction. And what is it? 
Where is the ground of the gentleman's 
triumpli? What inconsistency in word 
or doctrine lias he been able to detect? 
Sir, if this be a sample of that discom- 
fiture with which the honorable gentle- 
man threatened me, commend me to 
the word d'lscomjiture for the rest of my 
life. 

But, after all, this is not the point of 
the debate ; and I must now bring the 
gentleman back to what is the point. 

The real question between me and him 
is, Has the doctrine been advanced at 
the South or the East, that the popula- 
tion of the West should be retarded, or 
at least need not be hastened, on ac- 
count of its effect to drain off the people 
from the Atlantic States? Is this doc- 
trine, as has been alleged, of Eastern 
origin? That is the question. Has the 
gentleman found any thing by which he 
can make good his accusation? I sub- 
mit to the Senate, that he has entirely 
failed; and, as far as this debate has 
shown, the only person who has ad- 
vanced such sentiments is a gentleman 
from South Carolina, and a friend of the 
honorable member himself. The hon- 
orable gentleman has given no answer to 
this; there is none which can be given. 
The simple fact, while it requires no 
comment to enforce it, defies all argu- 
ment to refute it. I could refer to the 
speeches of another Southern gentle- 
man, in years before, of the same gen- 
eral character, and to the same effect, as 
that which has been quoted ; but I will 
not consume the time of the Senate by 
the reading of them. 

So then. Sir, New England is giiiltless 
of the policy of retarding Western popu- 
lation, and of all envy and jealousy of 
the growth of the new States. AVhat- 
ever there be of that policy in the coun- 
try, no part of it is liers. If it has a 
local habitation, the honorable member 
has probably seen by this time where to 
look for it; and if it now has received a 
name, he has himself christened it. 

We approach, at length, Sir, to a more 
important part of the honorable gentle- 
man's observations. Since it does not 



accord with my views of justice and 
policy to give away the public lands 
altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, 
I am asked by the honorable gentleman 
on what ground it is that I consent to 
vote them away in particular instances. 
How, he inquires, do I reconcile with 
these professed sentiments, my support 
of measures appropriating poi'tions of 
the lands to particular roads, particular 
canals, particular rivers, and particular 
institutions of education in the West? 
This leads, Sir, to the real and wide dif- 
ference in political opinion between the 
honorable gentleman and myself. On 
my part, I look upou all these objects as 
connected with the common good, fairly 
embraced in its object and its terms; 
he, on the contrary, deems them all, if 
good at all, only local good. This is our 
difference. The interrogatory which he 
proceeded to put at once explains this 
difference. " What interest," asks he, 
"has South Carolina in a canal in 
Ohio?" Sir, this very question is fuU 
of significance. It develops the gentle- 
man's whole political system; and its 
answer expounds mine. Here we dif- 
fer. I look upon a road over the Al- 
leghanies, a canal round the falls of the 
Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
Atlantic to the Western waters, as being 
an object large and extensive enough to 
be fairly said to be for the common 
benefit. The gentleman thinks other- 
wise, and this is the key to his construc- 
tion of the powers of the government. 
He may well ask what interest has 
South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. On 
his system, it is true, she has no interest. 
On that system, Ohio and Carolina are 
different governments, and different 
countries; connected here, it is true, by 
some slight and ill-defined bond of 
union, but in all main respects separate 
and diverse. On that system, Carolina 
has no more interest in a canal in Ohio 
than in Mexico. The gentleman, there- 
fore, only follows out his own principles ; 
he does no more than arrive at the natu- 
ral conclusions of his own doctrines ; he 
only announces the true results of that 
creed which he has adojited himself, and 
would persuade others to adopt, when hu 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



239 



thus declares that South Carolina has no 
interest in a public work in Oliio. 

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New 
England do not reason thus. Our notion 
of things is entirely different. We look 
upon the States, not as separated, but as 
united. We love to dwell on that union, 
and on the mutual happiness which it 
has so much promoted, and the common 
renown which it has so greatly contrib- 
uted to acquire. In our contemplation, 
Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same 
country ; States, united under the same 
general government, having interests, 
common, associated, intermingled. In 
whatever is within the proper sphere of 
the constitutional power of this govern- 
ment, w^e look upon the States as one. 
We do not impose geographical limits to 
our patriotic feeling or regard ; we do not 
follow rivers and mountains, and lines 
of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond 
which public improvements do not ben- 
efit us. We who come here, as agents 
and representativ^es of these narrow- 
minded and selfish men of New Eng- 
land, consider ourselves as bound to 
regard with an equal eye the good of the 
whole, in whatever is within our powers 
of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or ca- 
nal, beginning in South Carolina and 
ending in South Carolina, appeared to 
me to be of national importance and 
national magnitude, believing, as I do, 
that the power of government extends 
to the encouragement of works of that 
description, if I were to stand up here 
"and ask. What interest has Massachu- 
setts in a railroad in South Carolina? 
I should not be willing to face my con- 
stituents. These same narrow-minded 
men would tell me, that they had sent 
me to act for the whole country, and that 
one who possessed too little comprehen- 
sion, either of intellect or feeling, one 
who was not large enough, both in mind 
and in heart, to embrace the whole, was 
not fit to be intrusted with the interest 
of any part. 

Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the 
powers of the government by unju.stifi- 
able construction, nor to exercise any 
not within a fair interpretation. Hut 
when it is believed that a power does 



exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be 
exercised for the general benefit of the 
whole. So far as respects the exercise 
of such a power, the States are one. It 
was the very object of the Constitution 
to create unity of interests to tiie extent 
of the powers of the general government. 
In war and peace we are one; in com- 
merce, one; because the authority of the 
general governjneut reaches to war and 
peace, and to the regulation of com- 
merce. I have never seen any moie 
difficulty in erecting light-houses on the 
lakes, than on the ocean; in improving 
the harbors of inland seas, than if they 
were within the ebb and flow of the tide; 
or in removing obstructions in the vast 
streams of the West, more than in any 
work to facilitate commerce on the At- 
lantic coast. If there be any power for 
one, there is power also for the other; 
and they are all and equally for the com- 
mon good of the country. 

There are other objects, apparently 
more local, or the benefit of which is 
less general, towards which, neverthe- 
less, I have concurred with others, to 
give aid by donations of land. It is 
proposed to construct a road, in or 
through one of the new States, in which 
this government po.s.sesses large quanti- 
ties of land. Have the United States 
no right, or, as a great and untaxed 
proprietor, are they under no obligation 
to contribute to an object thus calcu- 
lated to promote the common good of 
all the proprietors, themselves included? 
And even with respect to education, 
which is the extreme case, let the ques- 
tion be considered. In the first place, 
as we have seen, it was made matter <if 
compact with these States, tliat tiiev 
should do their part to jironvitte educa- 
tion. In the next place, our whole sys- 
tem of land laws proceeds on tiie idea 
that education is for the connnon gDod; 
because, in every division, a certain 
portion is uniformly reserved and ai>- 
propriated for the use of schools. And, 
finally, have not liiese new States sin- 
gularly strong claims, founded on the 
ground already stated, tiiat the guvern- 
ment is a great niita.xed proprietor, in 
the ownership of the soil? It is a con- 



240 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



sideration of great importance, that prob- ' 
ably there is in no part of the country, 
or of the world, so great call for the 
means of education, as in these new 
States, owing to the vast numbers of 
persons witliin those ages in which edu- 
cation and instruction are usually re- 
ceived, if received at all. This is the 
natural consequence of recency of settle- 
ment and rapid increase. The census 
of these States shows how great a pro- 
portion of the whole population occu- 
pies the classes between infancy and 
manhood. These are the wide fields, 
and here is the deep and quick soil for 
the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and 
this is the favored season, the very 
spring-time for sowing them. Let them 
be disseminated without stint. Let them 
be scattered with a bountiful hand, 
broadcast. Whatever the government 
can fairly do towards these objects, in 
my opinion, ought to be done. 

These, Sir, are the grounds, suc- 
cinctly stated, on which my votes for 
grants of lands for particular objects 
rest; while I maintain, at the same 
time, that it is all a common fund, for 
the common benefit. And reasons like 
these, I presume, have influenced the 
votes of other gentlemen from New 
England. Those who have a different 
view of the powers of the government, 
of course, come to different conclusions, 
on these, as on other questions. I ob- 
served, when speaking on this subject be- 
fore, that if we looked to any measure, 
whether for a road, a canal, or any thing 
else, intended for tlie improvement of 
the West, it would be found that, if the 
New England ayes were struck out of 
the lists of votes, the Southern noes 
would always have rejected the meas- 
ure. The truth of this has not been 
denied, and cannot be denied. Li stat- 
ing this, I thought it just to ascribe it 
to the constitutional scruples of the 
South, rather than to any other less 
favorable or less charitable cause. But 
no sooner liad I done this, than the hon- 
orable gentleman asks if I reproach him 
and his friends with their constitutional 
scruples. Sir, I reproach nobody. I 
stated a fact, and gave the most respect- 



ful reason for it that occurred to me. 
The gentleman cannot deny the fact; he 
may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. 
It is not long since I had occasion, in 
presenting a petition from his own State, 
to account for its being intrusted to my 
hands, by saying, that the constitutional 
opinions of the gentleman and his wor- 
thy colleague prevented them from sup- 
porting it. Sir, did I state this as matter 
of reproach? Far from it. Did I attempt 
to find any other cause than an honest one 
for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did 
not become me to doubt or to insinuate 
that the gentleman had either changed 
his sentiments, or that he had made up a 
set of constitutional opinions accommo- 
dated to any particular combination of 
political occurrences. Had I done so, I 
should have felt, that, while I was enti- 
tled to little credit in thus questioning 
other people's motives, I justified the 
whole world in suspecting my own. But 
how has the gentleman returned this 
respect for others' opinions? His own 
candor and justice, how have they been 
exhibited towards the motives of others, 
while he has been at so much pains to 
maintain, what nobody has disjouted, 
the purity of his own ? Why, Sir, he 
has asked when, and how, and why New 
England votes were found going for 
measures favorable to the West. He has 
demanded to be informed whether all 
this did not begin in 1825, and while the 
election of President was still pending. 

Sir, to these questions retort would be 
justified; and it is both cogent and at 
hand. Neverthebss, I will answer the 
inquiry, not by retort, but by facts. I 
will tell the gentleman ivhen, and how, 
and why New England has supported 
measures favorable to the West. I have 
already referred to the early history of 
the government, to the first acquisition 
of the lands, to the original laws for 
disposing of them, and for governing 
the territories where they lie ; and have 
shown the influence of New England 
men and New England principles in 
all these leading measures. I should 
not be pardoned were I to go over 
that ground again. Coming to more 
recent times, and to measui'es of a less 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



241 



general character, T have endeavored to 
prove that every tiling of this kind, de- 
signed for Western improvement, has de- 
pended on the votes of New England; 
all this is true beyond the power of con- 
tradiction. And now, Sir, there are two 
measures to which I will refer, not so 
ancient as to belong to the early history 
of the public lands, and not so recent as 
to be on this side of the period when 
the gentleman charitably imagines a 
new direction may have been given to 
New England feeling and New England 
•votes. These measures, and the New 
England votes in supjwrt of them, may 
be taken as samples and specimens of all 
the rest. 

In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 
1820) the people of the West besought 
Congress for a reduction in the price of 
lands. In favor of that reduction, New 
England, witli a delegation of forty 
members in the other house, gave thirty- 
three votes, and one only against it. 
The four Southern States, with more 
than fifty members, gave thirty- two votes 
for it, and seven against it. Again, in 
1821, (observe again. Sir, the time,) the 
law passed for the relief of the purchas- 
ers of the public lands. This was a 
measure of vital importance to the West, 
and more especially to the Southwest. 
It authorized the relinquishment of con- 
tracts for lands which had been entered 
into at high prices, and a reduction in 
other cases of not less than thirty-seven 
and a half per cent on the purchase- 
money. Many millions of dollars, six 
or seven, I believe, probably much more, 
were relinquished by this law. On this 
bill, New England, with her forty mem- 
bers, gave nioi'e affirmative vot«s than 
the four Southern States, with their fifty- 
two or fifty-three members. These two 
are far the most important general meas- 
ures respecting the public lands which 
have been adopted within the last twenty 
years. They took place in 1820 and 
1821. That is the time ivhen. 

As to the manner how, the gentleman 
already sees that it was by voting in 
solid column for the required relief; 
and, lastly, as to the cause why, I tell 
the gentleman it was because the mem- 



bers from New England tliought the 
measures just and salutary ; because they 
entertained towards the West neither 
envy, hatred, nor malice; becau.se they 
deemed it becoming them, as just and 
enlightened public men, to meet the ex- 
igency which had arisen in the West 
with the appropriate measure of relief : 
because they felt it due to their own 
characters, and the characters of their 
New England predecessors in this gov- 
ernment, to act towards the new States 
in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, 
magnanimous policy. So much, Sir, for 
the cause why ; and I hope that by this 
time, Sir, the honorable gentleman is 
satisfied; if not, I do not know when, or 
how, or why he ever will be. 

Having recurred to these two impor- 
tant measures, in answer to the gentle- 
man's inquiries, I must now beg per- 
mission to go back to a period somewhat 
earlier, for the purpose of still further 
showing how much, or rather how little, 
reason there is for the gentleman's in- 
sinuation that political hopes or fears, or 
party associations, were the grounds of 
these New England votes. And after 
what has been said, I hope it may be 
forgiven me if I allude to some political 
opinions and votes of my own, of very 
little public importance certainly, but 
which, from the time at which they were 
given and expressed, may pass for good 
witnesses on this occasion. 

This government, Mr. President, from 
its origin to the peace of 1815, had been 
too much engrossed with various other 
important concerns to be able to turn 
its thoughts inward, and look to the de- 
velopment of its vast internal resources. 
In the early part of President Wash- 
ington's administration, it was fully 
occupied with completing its own or- 
ganization, providing for the public 
debt, def(Miding the frontiers, an«l main- 
taining domestic peace. Before the ter- 
mination of that aihniriistralion, the 
fires of the French Rtivolution blazed 
forth, as from a new-opened volcano, 
and the whole breadth of the ocean did 
not secure us from its effects. The smoke 
and the cinders reacln'd us. though not 
Difficult and agitating 



the burning lava. 



16 



242 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



questions, embarrassing to government 
and dividing public opinion, sprung out 
of the new state of our foreign rebations, 
and were succeeded by others, and yet 
again by others, equally embarrassing 
and equally exciting division and dis- 
cord, through the long series of twenty 
years, till they finally issued in the war 
witli England. Down to the close of 
that war, no distinct, marked, and de- 
liberate attention had been given, or 
could have been given, to the internal 
condition of the country, its capacities of 
improvement, or the constitutional power 
of the government in regard to objects 
connected with such improvement. 

The peace, Mr. President, brought 
about an entirely new and a most inter- 
esting state of things; it opened to us 
other prospects and suggested other du- 
ties. We ourselves were changed, and 
the whole world was changed. The 
pacification of Europe, after June, 1815, 
assumed a firm and permanent aspect. 
The nations evidently manifested that 
they were disposed for peace. Some 
agitation of the waves might be expected, 
even after the storm had subsided ; but 
the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, 
towards settled repose. 

It so happened. Sir, that I was at that 
time a member of Congress, and, like 
others, naturally turned my thoughts to 
the contemplation of the recently altered 
condition of the country and of the 
world. It appeared plainly enough to 
me, as well as to wiser and more experi- 
enced men, that the policy of the gov- 
ernment would naturally take a start in 
a new direction; because new directions 
would necessarily be given to the pur- 
suits and occupations of the people. We 
had pushed our commerce far and fast, 
under the advantage of a neuti-al flag. 
I>ut there were now no longer flags, 
either neutral or belligerent. The har- 
vest of neutiality had been great, but 
we had gathered it all. With the peace 
of Europe, it was obvious there would 
spring up in her circle of nations a re- 
vived and invigorated spirit of trade, 
and a new activity in all the business 
and objects of civilized life. Hereafter,- 
our commercial gains were to be earned 



only by success in a close and intense 
competition. Other nations would pro- 
duce for themselves, and cany for them- 
selves, and manufacture for themselves, 
to the full extent of their abilities. The 
crops of our plains would no longer sus- 
tain European armies, nor our ships 
longer supply those whom war had ren- 
dered unable to supply themselves. It 
was obvious, that, under these circum- 
stances, the country would begin to 
survey itself, and to estimate its own 
capacity of improvement. 

And this improvement, — how was it 
to be accomplished, and who was to ac- 
complish it? We were ten or twelve 
millions of people, spread over almost 
half a world. We were more than 
twenty States, some stretching along 
the same seaboard, some along the same 
line of inland frontier, and others on 
opposite banks of the same vast rivers. 
Two considerations at once presented 
themselves with great force, in looking 
at this state of things. One was, that 
that great branch of improvement which 
consisted in furnishing new facilities of 
intercourse necessarily ran into different 
States in every leading instance, and 
would benefit the citizens of all such 
States. No one State, therefore, in 
such cases, would assume the whole ex- 
pense, Tior was the co-operation of sev- 
eral States to be expected. Take the 
instance of the Delaware breakwater. 
It will cost several millions of money. 
Would Pennsylvania alone ever have 
constructed it? Certainly never, while 
this Union lasts, because it is not for 
her sole benefit. Would Pennsylvania, 
New Jersey, and Delaware have united 
to accomplish it at their joint expense ? 
Certainly not, for the same reason. It 
could not be done, therefore, but by the 
general government. The same may 
be said of the large inland undertakings, 
except that, in them, government, in- 
stead of bearing the whole expense, 
co-operates with others who bear a part. 
The other consideration is, that the 
United States have the means. They 
enjoy the revenues derived from com- 
merce, and the States have no abundant 
and easy sources of public income. The 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



243 



oustom-houses fill the general treasui-y, 
while the States have scanty resources, 
except by ^-esort to heavy direct taxes. 

Under this view of things, I thought 
it necessary to settle, at least for myself, 
some definite notions with respect to the 
powers of the government in regard to 
internal affairs. It may not savor too 
much of self-commendation to remark, 
that, with this object, I considered the 
Constitution, its judicial construction, 
its contemporaneous exposition, and the 
whole history of the legislation of Con- 
gress under it; and 1 arrived at the 
conclusion, that government had power 
to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in 
their accomplishment, which are now 
commonly spoken of as Internal Im- 
PROVKMKNTS. That conclusion. Sir, 
may have been right, or it may have 
been wrong. I am not about to argue 
the grounds of it at large. I say only, 
that it was adopte'd and acted on even 
so early as in 1816. Yes, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I made up my opinion, and deter- 
mined on my intended course of political 
conduct, on these subjects, in the Four- 
teenth Congress, in 1816. And now, 
Mr. President, I have further to say, 
that I made up these opinions, and en- 
tered on tiiis course of political conduct, 
Teucro duce.^ Yes, Sir, I pursued in all 
this a South Carolina track on the doc- 
trines of internal improvement. South 
Carolina, as she was then lepresented in 
the other house, set forth in 1816 under 
a fresh and leading breeze, and I was 
among the followers. But if my leader 
sees new lights and turns a sharp cor- 
ner, unless I see new lights also, 1 keep 
straight on in the same path. I repeat, 
that leading gentlemen from South Caro- 
lina were first and foremost in behalf of 
the doctrines of internal improvements, 
when those doctrines caiue first to be 
considered and acted upon in Congress. 
The debate on the bank question, on the 
tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, 
will show who was who, and what was 
what, at that time. 

The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain 

1 Mr. Calhoun, wlion this speech was made, 
was President (if the Senate, and Vice-Presi- 
dent of the United States. 



cases of oppression and usurpation , from 
which, if the government does not re- 
cede, individual States may justly secede 
from the government,) is. Sir, in truth, 
a South Carolina tariff, supported by 
South Carolina votes. But for those 
votes, it could not have passed in the 
form in which it did pass; whereas, if 
it had depended on Massachusetts votes, 
it would have been lost. Does not the 
honorable gentleman well know all this? 
There are certainly tho.se who do, full 
well, know it all. I do not say this to 
reproach South Carolina. I only state 
the fact; and I think it will appear to 
be true, that among the earliest and 
boldest advocates of the tariff, as a 
measure of protection, and on the ex- 
press ground of protection, were leading 
gentlemen of South Carolina in Con- 
gress. I did not then, and cannot now, 
understand their language in any other 
sense. While this tariff of 1S16 was 
under discussion in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, an honorable gentleman from 
Georgia, now of this house,- moved to 
reduce the proposed duty on cotton. lie 
failed, by four votes, South Carolina giv- 
ing three votes (enough to have turned the 
scale) against his motion. The act, Sir, 
then passed, and received on its passage 
the support of a majority of the Repre- 
sentatives of South Carolina present 
and voting. This act is the first in the 
order of those now denounced as plain 
usurpations. We see it daily in the 
list, by the side of those of 1824 and 
1828, as a case of manifest oppression, 
justifying disunion. I put it home to 
the honorable member from Suutii Caro- 
lina, that his own State was nut only 
"art and part" in this measure, but the 
causa causans. Without her aid, this 
seminal principle of mischief, this root 
of Upas, could not have been planted. 
I have already said, and it is true, that 
this act proceeded on the ground of pro- 
tection. It interfered directly with exist- 
ing interests of great value and amount. 
It cut up the Calcutta cotton trad.; by 
the roots; but it passed, nevertheless, 
and it passed on the principle of pro- 
tecting manufactures, on the principle 

2 Mr. Forsvtli. 



244 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



against free trade, on the principle op- 
posed to that v)hich lets ms alone. 

Such, Mr. President, were the opin- 
ions of important and leading gentlemen 
from South Carolina, on the subject of 
internal improvement, in 181G. I went 
out of Congress the next year, and, re- 
turning again in 1823, thought I found 
South Carolina where I had left her. I 
really supposed that all things remained 
as they were, and that the South Caro- 
lina doctrine of internal improvements 
would be defended by the same eloquent 
voices, and the same strong arms, as 
formerly. In the lapse of these six 
years, it is true, political associations 
had assumed a new aspect and new di- 
visions. A strong party had arisen in 
the South hostile to the doctrine of in- 
ternal improvements. Anti-consolida- 
tion was the flag under which this party 
fought; and its supporters inveighed 
against internal improvements, much 
after the manner in which the honorable 
gentleman has now inveighed against 
them, as part and parcel of the system 
of consolidation. Whether this party 
arose in South Carolina itself, or in the 
neighborhood, is more than I know. I 
think the latter. However that may 
have been, there were those found in 
South Carolina ready to make war upon 
it, and who did make intrepid war upon 
it. Names being regarded as things in 
such controversies, they bestowed on 
the anti-improvement gentlemen the ap- 
pellation of Radicals. Yes, Sir, the 
appellation of Radicals, as a term of 
distinction applicable and applied to 
those who denied the liberal doctrines 
of internal improvement, originated, 
according to the best of my recollection, 
somewhere between North Carolina and 
Georgia. Well, Sir, these mischievous 
Radicals were to be put down, and the 
strong arm of South Carolina was 
stretched out to put them down. About 
this time I returned to Congress. The 
battle with the Radicals had been 
fought, and our South Carolina cham- 
pions of the doctrines of internal im- 
provement had nobly maintained their 
groimd, and were understood to have 
achieved a victory. We looked upon 



them as conquerors. They had driven | 
back the enemy with discomfiture, a 
thing, by the way, Sir, which is not 
always performed when it is promised. 
A gentleman to whom I have already 
referred in this debate had come into 
Congress, during my absence from it, 
from South Carolina, and had brought 
with him a high reputation for ability. 
He came from a school with which we 
had been acquainted, et noscitur a sociis. 
I hold in my hand. Sir, a printed speech 
of this distinguished gentleman,^ " On 
Internal Improvements," delivered 
about the period to which I now refer, 
and printed with a few introductory re- 
marks upon conftolidation ; in which, Sir, 
I think he quite consolidated the argu- 
ments of his opponents, the Radicals, if 
to crush be to consolidate. I give you 
a short but significant quotation from 
these remarks. He is speaking of a 
pamphlet, then recently published, en- 
titled " Consolidation "; and, having al- 
luded to the question of renewing the 
chai-ter of the former Bank of the United 
States, he says: — 

" Moreover, in the early history of parties, 
and when Mr. Crawford advocated a re- 
newal of the old charter, it was considered 
a Federal measure ; which internal improve- 
ment never was, as this author erroneously 
states. This latter measure originated in 
the administration of Mr. Jefferson, with the 
appropriation for the Cumberland Road ; 
and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. 
Calhoun, and carried through the House of 
Representatives by a large majority of the 
Republicans, including almost every one of 
the leading men who carried us through the 
late war." 

So, then, internal improvement is not 
one of the Federal heresies. One para- 
graph more. Sir: — 

" Tlie author in question, not content witli 
denouncing as Federalists, General Jackson, 
Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority 
of the South Carolina delegation in Con- 
gress, modestly extends the denunciation 
to Mr. Monroe and the whole Republican 
party. Here are his words : ' During the 
administration of Mr. Monroe much has 
passed which the Republican party would 

1 Mr. McDuffie. 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



245 



he ff\a(\ to approve if they could ! ! But the 
principal feature, and that which has chicHy 
elicited these observations, is the renewal 
of the System of Inteknal Imi'uovb- 
MENTS.' Now this measure was adopted by 
a vote of 1 15 to 8G of a Republican Con- 
press, and sanctioned by a Kepublican Pres- 
ident. Who, then, is this author, who as- 
sumes the hiirh prerogative of denouncing, 
in the name of the Republican jiarty, the 
Republican administration of the coun- 
try ■? A denunciation including within its 
sweep Calhoun, Lowndes, and Chcves, men 
who will be regarded as the brightest orna- 
ments of South Carolina, and the strongest 
jiilhirs of the Republican party, as long as 
the late war shall be remembered, and tal- 
ents and patriotism shall be regarded as the 
proper objects of the admiration and grati- 
tude of a free people ! ! " 

Such are the opinions, Sir, which were 
maintained by South Carolina gentle- 
men, in the House of Representatives, 
on the subject of internal improvements, 
when I took my seat there as a member 
from Massachusetts in 1823. But this 
is not all. We had a bill before us, and 
passed it in that house, entitled, " An 
Act to procure the necessary surveys, 
plans, and estimates upon the suV>ject of 
roads and canals." It authorized the 
President to cause surveys and estimates 
to be made of the routes of such roads 
and canals as he might deem of national 
importance in a commercial or military 
point of view, or for the transjiortation 
of the mail, and appropriated thirty 
tliousand dollars out of the treasury to 
<iefray the expense. This act, though 
preliminary in its nature, covered the 
whole ground. It took for granted the 
complete power of internal improvement, 
as far as any of its advocates had ever 
contended for it. Having passed the 
other house, the bill came up to the Sen- 
ate, and was here considered and debated 
in April, 1824. The honorable member 
from South (Carolina was a member of 
the Senate at that time. While the bill 
was under consideration here, a motion 
was made to add the following proviso: 
" Provided, That nothing herein con- 
tained shall be construed to affirm or 
(idmit a power in Congress, on their own 
authority, to make roads or canals witliiu 



any of the States of the Union." The 
yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, 
and the honorable member voted in the 
negative ! The proviso failed. 

A motion was tlien made to add 
this proviso, viz.: '■'Provided, That the 
faith of the United States is hereby 
pledged, that no money shall ever be ex- 
pended for roads or canals, except it 
shall be among the several States, and 
in the same proportion as direct taxes 
are laid and assessed by the provisions 
of the Constitution." The honorable 
member voted (u/alnst this proviso also, 
and it failed. The bill was then put on 
its passage, and the honorable member 
voted for it, and it passed, and became 
a law. 

Now, it strikes me, Sir, that there is 
no maintaining these votes, but upon 
the power of internal improvement, in 
its broadest sense. In truth, these bills 
for surveys and estimates have always 
been considered as test questions; they 
show who is for and who against internal 
improvement. This law itself went the 
whole length, and assumed the full and 
complete power. The gentleman's votes 
sustained that power, in every form in 
which the various propositions to amend 
presented it. He went for the entire 
and unrestrained authority, witiiout con- 
sulting the States, and without agreeing 
to any proportionate distribution. And 
now suffer me to remind you, Mr. Pres- 
ident, that it is this very same power, 
thus sanctioned, in every form, by the 
gentleman's own opinion, which is so 
plain and manifest a usurjiation, that 
the State of South Carolina is supposed 
to be justified in refusing submission to 
any laws carrying the power into ctYfct. 
Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard ? 
May we not crave some mercy, under 
favor and protection of tlie gentleman '.s 
own authority ? Admitting that a road, 
or a canal, must be written down flat 
usurpation as was ever committed, may 
we find no mitigation in our respect for 
his place, and his vote, as one that 
knows the law ? 

The tariff, which South Carolina hiid 
an efficient hand in establishing, in 1810, 
and this asserted power of internal im- 



246 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



provement, advanced by her in the same 
year, and, as we have seen, approved 
and sanctioned by her Representatives in 
1824, — these two measures are the gi-eat 
grounds on which she is now thought to 
be justified in breaking up the Union, if 
she sees fit to break it up ! 

I may now safely say, I think, that 
we have had the authority of leading and 
distinguished gentlemen from South 
Carolina in support of the doctrine of 
internal improvement. I repeat, that, 
up to 1824, I for one followed South 
Carolina; but when that star, in its as- 
cension, veered off in an unexpected di- 
rection, I relied on its light no longer. 

Here the Vice-President said, "Does the 
chair understand the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts to say that the person now oc- 
cupying the chair of the Senate has changed 
his opinions on the suhject of internal im- 
provements 1 " 

From nothing ever said to me, Sir, 
have I had reason to know of any change 
in the opinions of the person filling the 
chair of the Senate , If such change has 
taken place, I regret it. I speak gener- 
ally of the State of South Carolina. In- 
dividuals we know there are who hold 
opinions favorable to the power. An 
application for its exercise, in behalf of 
a public work in South Carolina itself, 
is now pending, I believe, in the other 
house, presented by members from that 
State. 

I have thus. Sir, perhaps not without 
some tediousness of detail, shown, if I 
am in error on tlie subject of internal 
improvement, how, and in what com- 
pany, I fell into that error. If I am 
wrong, it is apparent who misled me. 

I go to other remarks of the honor- 
able member; and 1 have to complain 
of an entire misapprehension of what I 
said on the subject of the national debt, 
though I can hardly perceive how any 
one could misunderstand me. What I 
said was, not that I wislied to put off the 
payment of the debt, but, on the con- 
tra ly, that I had always voted for every 
measure for its reduction, as uniformly 
as the gentleman himself. . He seems to 
claim the exclusive merit of a dLsposi- 



tion to reduce the public charge. I do 
not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, 
I am for paying it, because it is a charge 
on our finances, and on the industjy of 
the country. But I observed, that I 
thought I perceived a morbid fervor on 
that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay 
off the debt, not so much because it is a 
debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it 
furnishes one objection to disunion. It 
is, while it continues, a tie of common 
interest. I did not imj^ute such motives 
to the honorable member himself, but 
that there is such a feeling in existence 
I have not a jiarticle of doubt. The 
most I said was, that, if one effect of the 
debt was to strengthen our Union , that 
effect itself was not regretted by me, 
however much others might regret it. 
The gentleman has not seen how to re- 
ply to this, otherwise than by supposing 
me to have advanced the doctrine that 
a national debt is a national blessing. 
Others, I must hope, will find much less 
difficulty in understanding me. I dis- 
tinctly and pointedly cautioned the hon- 
orable member not to understand me as 
expressing an oi^inion favorable to the 
continuance of the debt. I repeated 
this caution, and repeated it more than 
once ; but it was thrown away. 

On yet another point, I was still more 
unaccountably misunderstood. The gen- 
tleman had harangued against " consoli- 
dation." I told him, in reply, that there 
was one kind of consolidation to which 
I was attached, and that was the con- 
solidation of our Union ; that this was 
precisely that consolidation to which I 
feared others were not attached, and 
that such consolidation was the very 
end of the Constitution, the leading 
object, as they had informed us them- 
selves, which its framers had kept in 
view. I turned to their communica- 
tion,^ and read their very words, "the 
consolidation of the Union," and ex- 
pressed my devotion to this sort of con- 
solidation. I said, in terms, that I 
wished not in the slightest degree to 
augment the powers of this government; 

1 The letter of the Federal Convention to the 
Congress of the Confederation transmitting the 
plan of the Constitution. 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



247 



that my object was to preserve, not to 
I'lilarge; and that by consolidating the 
Union I understood no more than tlie 
t^trengthening of the Union, and per- 
petuating it. Having been thus ex- 
]ilicit, having thus read from the printed 
book tlie precise words which 1 adopted, 
as expressing my own sentiments, it 
]>asses compi'ehension liow' any man 
could understand me as contending for 
an extension of the powers of the gov- 
ernment, or for consolidation in that 
odious sense in which it means an ac- 
cumulation, in the federal government, 
of the powers properly belonging to the 
States. 

I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the 
sentiment of the framers of the Consti- 
tution, I read their language audibly, 
and word for word; and I pointed out 
tlie distinction, just as fully as I have 
now done, between the consolidation of 
the Union and that other obnoxious con- 
solidation which I disclaimed. And yet 
the honorable member misunderstood 
me. The gentleman had said that he 
wished for no fixed revenue, — not a 
.•shilling. If by a word he could convert 
the Capitol into gold, he would not do 
it. Why all this fear of revenue? AVhy, 
Sir, because, as the gentleman told us, 
it tends to consolidation. Now this can 
mean neither more nor less than that a 
common revenue is a common interest, 
and that all common interests tend to 
preserve the union of the States. I con- 
fess I like that tendency; if the gentle- 
man dislikes it, he is right in deprecat- 
ing a shilling of fixed revenue. So 
much. Sir, for consolidation. 

As well as I recollect the course of his 
remarks, the honorable gentleman next 
recurred to the subject of the tariff.' 
He did not doubt the word nmst be of 
unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, 
with an effort neither new nor attended 
with new success, to involve me and my 
votes in inconsistency and contradiction. 
I am happy the honorable gentleman 
has furnished me an opportunity of a 
timely remark or two on that subject. 
I was glad he approached it, for it is 
a question T enter upon without fear 
from anybody. The strenuous toil of the 



gentleman has been to raise an incon- 
sistency between my dis.sent to the tariff 
in 1824, and my vote in 1828. It ia 
labor lost. He pays undeserved com- 
pliment to my speech in 1824; but this 
is to raise me high, that my fall, as he 
would have it, in 1828, may be more 
signal. Sir, tliere was no fall. Be- 
tween the ground I stood on in 1824 
and that I took in 1828, there was not 
'onlj' no precipice, but no declivity. It 
was a change of position to meet new 
circumstances, but on the same level. 
A plain tale explains the w'hole matter. 
In 1816 I had not acquiesced in the 
tariff, then supported by South Caro- 
lina. To some parts of it, especially, I 
felt and expressed great repugnance. I 
held the same opinions in 1820, at the 
meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the 
gentleman has alluded. I .said then, 
and say now, that, as an original ques- 
tion, the authority of Congress to ex- 
ercise the revenue power, with direct 
reference to the protection of manufac- 
tures, is a questionable authority, far 
more questionable, in my judgment, 
than the power of internal improve- 
ments. I must confess, Sir, that in one 
respect some impression has been made 
on my opinions lately. Mr. Madison's 
publication has put the power in a very 
strong light. He has placed it, I nuist 
acknowledge, upon grounds of construc- 
tion and argument which seem impreg- 
nable. But even if the power were 
doubtful, on the face of the Constitu- 
tion itself, it had been a.ssumed and 
asserted in the first revenue law ever 
pas.sed under that same Constitution; 
and on this ground, as a matter settled 
by contemporaneous practice, I iiad 
refrained from expressing the opinion 
that the tariff laws transcended consti- 
tutional limits, as the gentleman sup- 
poses. What I did say at Faneuil Hall. 
as far as I now rennMuber, was, that 
this was originally nKitter of doubtful 
con.struction. The gentleman himself, 
I snj^pose, thinks there is no doubt 
about it, and that the laws are plainly 
against the Con.^titution. Mr. Madi- 
son's letters, already referred to, con- 
tain, in my judgment, by far the most 



248 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



able exposition extant of this part of 
the Constitution. He has satisfied me, 
so far as the practice of the government 
had left it an open question. 

With a great majority of the Repre- 
sentatives of Massachusetts, I voted 
against the tariff of 1824. My reasons 
were then given, and I will not now re- 
peat them. But, notwithstanding our 
dissent, the great States of New York, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky went 
for the bill, in almost unbroken column, 
and it passed. Congress and the Presi- 
dent sanctioned it, and it became the 
law of the land. What, then, were we 
to do? Our only option was, either to 
fall in with this settled course of public 
policy, and accommodate oui'selves to 
it as well as we could, or to embrace the 
South Carolina doctrine, and talk of 
nullifying the statute by State interfer- 
ence. 

This last alternative did not suit our 
principles, and of course we adopted the 
former. In 1827, the subject came again 
before Congress, on a proposition to 
alford some relief to the branch of wool 
and woollens. We looked upon the sys- 
tem of protection as being fixed and 
settled. The law of 1821 remained. It 
had gone into full operation, and, in re- 
gard to some objects intended by it, per- 
haps most of them, had produced all its 
expected effects. No man proposed to 
repeal it; no man attempted to renew 
the general contest on its principle. 
But, owing to subsequent and unfore- 
seen occurrences, the benefit intended 
by it to wool and woollen fabrics had 
not been realized. Events not known 
here when the law passed had taken 
place, which defeated its object in that 
l)articular respect. A measure was ac- 
cordingly brought forward to meet this 
]irecise deficiency, to remedy this par- 
ticular defect. It was limited to wool 
and woollens. Was ever any thing more 
reasonable? If the policy of the tariff 
laws had become established in princi- 
ple, as the permanent policy of the gov- 
ernment, should they not be revised and 
amended, and made equal, like other 
laws, as exigencies should arise, or jus- 
tice require? Because we had doubted 



about adopting the system, were we to 
refuse to cure its manifest defects, after 
it had been adopted, and when no one 
attempted its repeal? And this. Sir, is 
the inconsistency so much bruited. I 
had voted against the tariff of 1824, but 
it passed; and in 1827 and 1828 I vot«d 
to amend it, in a point essential to the 
interest of my constituents. Where is 
the inconsistency? Could I do other- 
wise? Sir, does political consistency 
consist in always giving negative votes ? 
Does it require of a public man to re- 
fuse to concur in amending laws, be- 
cause they passed against his consent? 
Having voted against the tariff origi- 
nally, does consistency demand that I 
should do all in my power to inaintain 
an unequal tariff, burdensome to my 
own constituents in many respects, fa- 
vorable in none? To consistency of that 
sort, I lay no claim. And there is an- 
other sort to which I lay as little, and 
that is, a kind of consistency by which 
persons feel themselves as much bound 
to oppose a proposition after it has be- 
come a law of the land as before. 

The bill of 1827, limited, as I have 
said, to the single object in which the 
tariff of 1824 had manifestly failed in 
its effect, passed the House of Repre- 
sentatives, but was lost here. We had 
then the act of 1828. I need not recur 
to the history of a measure so re- 
cent. Its enemies spiced it with what- 
soever they thought would render it dis- 
tasteful; its friends took it, drugged 
as it was. Vast amounts of property, 
many millions, had been invested in 
manufactures, under the inducements of 
the act of 1824. Events called loudly, as 
I thought, for further regulation to secure 
the degree of protection intended by that 
act. I was disposed to vote for such 
regulation, and desired nothing more; 
but certainly was not to be bantered out 
of my piirpose by a threatened augmen- 
tation of duty on molasses, put into the 
bill for the avowed purpose of making 
it obnoxious. The vote may have been 
right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it 
is little less than absui'd to allege against 
it an inconsistency with opposition to 
the former law. 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



249 



Sii', as to the general subject of the 
tariff, I have little now to say. Another 
opportunity may be presented. I re- 
marked the other day, that this policy 
did not begin with us in New England; 
and yet, Sir, New England is charged 
with vehemence as being favorable, or 
charged with et^ual vehemence as being 
unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as 
best suits the time, place, and occasion 
for making some charge against her. 
The credulity of the public has been put 
to its extreme capacity of false impres- 
sion relative to her conduct in tliis par- 
ticular. Through all the South, during 
the late contest, it was New England 
liolicy and a New England administra- 
tion that were afflicting the country with 
a tariff beyond all endm-ance ; while on 
the other side of the AUeghanies 6veu 
the act of 1828 itself, the very subli- 
mated essence of oppression, according to 
Southern opinions, was pronounced to be 
one of those blessings for which the West 
was indebted to the " generous South." 
With large investments in manufac- 
turing establishments, and many and 
various interests connected with and de- 
pendent on them, it is not to be expected 
that New England, any more than other 
portions of the country, will now con- 
sent to any measure destructive or highly 
dangerous. The duty of the govern- 
ment, at the present moment, would 
seem to be to preserve, not to destroy; 
to maintain the position which it has as- 
sumed; and, for one, I shall feel it an 
indispensable obligation to hold it steady, 
as far as in my power, to that degree of 
protection which it has undertaken to 
bestow. No more of the tariff. 

Professing to be provoked by what he 
chose to consider a charge made by me 
against Soutli Carolina, the honorable 
member, Mr. President, has taken up 
a new crusade against New England. 
Leaving altogether the subject of the 
public lands, in which his success, per- 
haps, had been neither distuiguished nor 
satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the 
topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a 
general assault on the opinions, politics, 
and parties of New England, as they 
have been exhibited in the last thirty 



years. This is natural. The "narrow 
policy" of the public lands had proved 
a legal settlement in South Carolina, and 
was not to be removed. The " accursed 
policy " of the tariff, also, had estal> 
lished the fact of its birth and parentage 
in the same State. No wonder, there- 
fore, the gentleman wislied to carry the 
war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's 
country. Prudently willing to quit these 
subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of 
fastening on others, which could not be 
transferred south of !Mason and Dixon's 
line. The politics of New England be- 
came his theme; and it was in this part 
of his speech, I think, that he menaced 
me with such sore discomfiture. Dis- 
comfiture! Why, Sir, when he attacks 
any thing which I maintain, and over- 
throws it, when he turns the right or 
left of any position which I take up, 
when he drives me from any ground I 
choose to occupy, he may then talk of 
discomfiture, but not till that distant 
day. What has he done ? Has he main- 
tained his own charges ? Has he proved 
what he alleged ? Has he sustained him- 
self in his attack on the government, 
and on the history of the North, in the 
matter of the public lands ? Has he dis- 
proved a fact, refuted a proposition, 
weakened an argument, maintained by 
me ? Has he come within beat of drum 
of any position of mine ? O, no; but he 
has "carried the war into the enemy's 
country " ! Carried the war into tlie ene- 
my's country ! Yes, Sir, and what sort of 
a war has he made of it ? Why, Sir, he 
has stretched a drag-net over the whole 
surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet 
sermons, frotliy paragraphs, and fuming 
popular addres.ses, — over wliatever the 
pulpit in its moments of alarm, the 
I»ress in its lieats, and parties in their 
extravagance, have severally thrown off 
in times of general excitement and vio- 
lence. He has thus swept together a 
mass of such tilings as, hut that they ar«' 
now old and cold, the public health 
would have nicjuired him rather to leave 
in their state of dispersion. For a good 
long hour or two, we had the unbwken 
pleasure of listening U) th«! honnrable 
member, while he recited with his usual 



250 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



grace anrl spirit, and with evident high 
gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, 
and all the et cceteras of the political 
press, such as warm heads produce in 
warm times; and such as it would be 
"discomfiture" indeed for any one, 
whose taste did not delight in that sort 
of reading, to be obliged to peruse. This 
is his war. This it is to carry war into 
tlie enemy's country. It is in an inva- 
sion of this sort, that he flatters himself 
with the expectation of gaining laurels 
fit to adorn a Senator's brow ! 

Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, 
I trust, be expected that I should, either 
now or at any time , separate this farrago 
into parts, and answer and examine its 
components. I shall barely bestow upon 
it all a general remark or two. In the 
run of forty years. Sir, under this Con- 
stitution, we have experienced sundry 
successive violent party contests. Party 
arose, indeed, with the Constitution it- 
self, and, in some form or other, has at- 
tended it through the greater part of its 
history. Whether any other constitu- 
tion than the old Articles of Confedera- 
tion was desirable, was itself a ques- 
tion on which parties divided ; if a new 
constitution were framed, what powers 
should be given to it was another ques- 
tion ; and when it had been formed, what 
was, in fact, the just extent of the pow- 
ers actually conferred was a third. Par- 
ties, as we know, existed under the first 
administration, as distinctly marked as 
those which have manifested themselves 
at any subsequent period. The con- 
test immediately preceding the political 
change in 1801, and that, again, which 
existed at the commencement of the late 
war, aie other instances of part}^ excite- 
ment, of something more than usual 
strength and intensity. In all these 
conflicts there was, no doubt, much of 
violence on both and all sides. It would 
be impossible, if one had a fancy for such 
employment, to adjust the relative quan- 
tum of violence between these contend- 
ing parties. There was enougli in each, 
as must always be expected in popular 
governments. With a great deal of pop- 
ular and decorous discussion, there was 
mingled a great deal, also, of declama- 



tion, virulence, crimination, and abuse. 
In regard to any party, probably, at one 
of the leading epochs in the history of 
parties, enough may be found to make 
out another inflamed exhibition, not un- 
like that with which the honorable mem- 
ber has edified us. For myself, Sir, I 
shall not rake among the rubbish of by- 
gone times, to see what I can find, or 
whether I cannot find something by 
which I can fix a blot on the escutcheon 
of any State, any party, or any part of 
the country. General Washington's ad- 
ministration was steadily and zealously 
maintained, as we all know, by New 
England. It was violently opposed else- 
where. We know in what quarter he 
had tlie most earnest, constant, and per- 
severing support, in all his great and 
leading measures. We know where his 
private and personal character was held 
in the highest degree of attachment and 
veneration ; and we know, too, where 
his measures were opposed, his services 
slighted, and his character vilified. We 
know, or we might know, if we turned 
to the journals, who expressed respect, 
gratitude, and regret, when he retired 
from the chief magistracy, and who re- 
fused to express either respect, grati- 
tude, or regret. I shall not open those 
journals. Publications more abusive or 
scurrilous never saw the light, than were 
sent forth against Washington, and all 
his leading measures, from presses south 
of New England. But I shall not look 
them up. I employ no scavengers, no 
one is in attendance on me, furnishing 
such means of retaliation; and if there 
were, with an ass's load of them, with a 
bulk as huge as that which the gentle- 
man himself has produced, I would not 
touch one of them. I see enough of the 
violence of our ow'n times, to be no way 
anxious to rescue from forgetf ulness the 
extravagances of times past. 

Besides, what is all this to the present 
purpose ? It has nothing to do with the 
public lands, in regard to which the at- 
tack was begun; and it has nothing to 
do with those sentiments and opinions 
which, I have thought, tend to disunion, 
and all of which the honorable member 
seems to have adopted himself, and ua- 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



251 



dertaken to defend. New England has, 
at times, so argues the gentleman, held 
opinions as dangerous as those which he 
now holds. Suppose this were so; why 
should Ite therefore abuse New England V 
If he finds himself countenanced by acts 
of hers, how is it that, while he relies on 
these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, 
their authors with reproach? But, Sir, 
if, in the course of forty years, thei-e 
have been undue effervescences of party 
in New England, has the same thing 
happened nowhere else ? Party animos- 
ity and party outrage, not in New Eng- 
land, but elsewhere, denounced President 
Washington, not only as a Federalist, 
but as a Tory, a British agent, a man 
who, in his high office, sanctioned cor- 
ruption. But does the honorable mem- 
ber suppose, if I had a tender here who 
should put such an effusion of wicked- 
ness and folly into ray hand, that I would 
stand up and read it against the South V 
Parties ran into great heats again in 
1799 and 1800. AVhat was said. Sir, or 
rather what was not said, in those years, 
against John Adams, one of the com- 
mittee that drafted the Declaration of 
Independence, and its admitted ablest 
defender on the floor of Congress ? If 
the gentleman wishes to increase his 
stores of party abuse and frothy vio- 
lence, if he has a determined proclivity 
to sucli pursuits, there are treasures of 
that sort south of the Potomac, much to 
his taste, yet untouched. I shall not 
touch them. 

The parties which divided the country 
at the commencement of the late war 
were violent. But then there was vio- 
lence on both sides, and violence in 
every State. ]\linorities and majorities 
were equally violent. There was no 
more violence against the war in New 
England, than in other States; nor any 
more appearance of violence, except that, 
owing to a dense population, greater fa- 
cility of assembling, and more presses, 
there may have been more in quantity 
spoken and printed there than in some 
other places. In the article of sermons, 
too, New England is somewhat more 
abundant than South Carolina; and for 
that reason the chance of finding here 



and there an exceptionable one may be 
greater. I hope, too, there are more 
good ones. Opposition may have been 
more formidable in New England, as it 
embraced a larger portion of the whole 
population; but it was no more unre- 
strained in principle, or violent in man- 
ner. The minorities dealt quite as 
harshly with their own State govern- 
ments as the majorities dealt with the 
administration here. There were presses 
on both sides, popular meetings on both 
sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. 
The gentleman's purveyors have only 
catered for him among the productions 
of one side. I certainly shall not supply 
the deficiency by furnishing samples of 
the other. I leave to him, and to them, 
the whole concern. 

It is enough for me to say, that if, in 
any part of this their gi'ateful occupa- 
tion, if, in all their researches, they find 
any thing in the history of Massachu- 
setts, or New England, or in the pro- 
ceedings of any legislative or other public 
body, disloyal to the Union, speaking 
slightingly of its value, proposing to break 
it up, or recommending non-intercourse 
with neighboring States, on account of 
difference of political opinion, then, Sir, 
I give them all up to the honorable gen- 
tleman's unrestrained rebuke; expect- 
ing, however, that he will extend his 
buffetings in like manner to all similar 
proceedinc/s^ wherever else found. 

The gentleman, Sir, has spoken at 
large of former parties, now no longer 
m being, by their received appellations, 
and has im dertaken to instruct us, not 
only in the knowledge of their principles, 
but of their respective pedigrees also. 
He has ascended to their origin, and run 
out their genealogies. With most ex- 
emplary modesty, he speaks of the party 
to which he professes to have himself 
belojiged, as the true Pure, the oidy 
honest, patriotic party, derived by regu- 
lar descent, from father to son, from the 
time of the virtuous Romans ! Spread- 
ing before us the fftinih/ tree, of political 
parties, he takes especial care to show 
himself snugly perched on a popular 
bough ! lie is wakeful to the exi)ediency 
of adopting such rules of descent as shall 



252 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



bring him in, to the exclusion of others, 
as an heir to the inheritance of all pub- 
lic virtue, and all true political principle. 
His party and his opinions are sure to be 
ortliodox; heterodoxy is confined to his 
opponents. He spoke, Sir, of the Fed- 
eralists, and I thought I saw some eyes 
begin to oi)en and stare a little, wlien he 
ventured on that ground. I expected he 
would draw his sketches rather lightly, 
when he looked on the circle round 
him, and especially if he should cast his 
thoughts to tlie high places out of the 
Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to 
Rome, ad annum urbis condita, and 
found the fathers of the Federalists in 
the primeval aristocrats of that re- 
nowned city! He traced the flow of 
Federal blood down through successive 
ages and centuries, till he brought it 
into the veins of the American Tories, 
of whom, by the way, there were twenty 
in the Carolinas for one in Massachu- 
setts. From the Tories he followed it 
to the Federalists; and, as the Federal 
party was broken up, and there was no 
]iossibility of transmitting it further on 
this side the Atlantic, he seems to have 
discovered that it has gone off collater- 
ally, though against all the canons of 
descent, into the Ultras of France, and 
finally become extinguished, like ex- 
j)loded gas, among the adherents of 
Don Miguel! This, Sir, is an abstract 
of the gentleman's history of Federal- 
ism. I am not about to controvert it. 
It is not, at present, worth the pains of 
refutation; because. Sir, if at this day 
any one feels the sin of Federalism lying 
heavily on his conscience, he can easily 
])rocure remission. He may even obtain 
an indulgence, if he be desirous of re- 
peating the same transgression. It is an 
aifair of no difficulty to get into this 
same right line of patriotic descent. A 
man now-a-days is at liberty to choose 
his political parentage. He may elect 
his own father. Federalist or not, he 
may, if he choose, claim to belong to 
the favored stock, and his claim will be 
allowed. He may carry back his pre- 
tensions just as far as the honorable 
gentleman himself; nay, he may make 
himself out the honorable gentleman's 



cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he 
is descended from the same political 
gi-eat-grandfather. All this is allow- 
able. We all know a process. Sir, by 
which the whole Essex Junto could, in 
one hour, be all washed white from their 
ancient Federalism, and come out, every 
one of them, original Democrats, dyed 
in the wool ! Some of them have actually 
undergone the operation, and they say it 
is quite easy. The only inconvenience 
it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight 
tendency of the blood to the face, a soft 
suffusion, which, however, is very tran- 
sient, since nothing is said by those whom 
they join calculated to deepen the red on 
the cheek, but a prudent silence is ob- 
served in regard to all the past. Indeed, 
Sir, some smiles of approbation have 
been bestowed, and some crumbs of 
comfort have fallen, not a thousand 
miles from the door of the Hartford 
Convention itself. And if the author 
of the Ordinance of 1787 possessed the 
other requisite qualifications, there is 
no knowing, notwithstanding his Feder- 
alism, to what heights of favor he might 
not yet attain. 

Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, 
such as it is, into New England, the 
honorable gentleman all along professes 
to be acting on the defensive. He 
chooses to consider me as having as- 
sailed Soutli Carolina, and insists that 
he comes forth only as her champion, 
and in her defence. Sir, I do not admit 
that I made any attack whatever on 
South Carolina. Nothing like it. The 
honorable member, in his first speech, 
expressed opinions, in regard to reveime 
and some other topics, which I heard 
both with pain and with surprise. I 
told the gentleman I was aware that 
such sentiments were entertained out of 
the government, but had not expected 
to find them advanced in it; that I knew 
there were persons in the South who 
speak of our Union with indifference or 
doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, 
and to say nothing of its benefits ; that 
the honorable member himself, I was 
sure, could never be one of these ; and I 
regretted the expression of such opinions 
as he had avowed, because I thought 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



253 



their obvious tendency was to encourage 
feelings of disrespect to the Union, and 
to impair its strength. This, Sir, is the 
sum and substance of all I said on the 
subject. And this constitutes the attack 
which called on the chivalry of the gen- 
tleman, in his own opinion, to harry us 
with such a foray among the party pam- 
phlets and party proceedings of Massa- 
chusetts ! If he means that I spoke with 
dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebul- 
litions of individuals in South Carolina, 
it is true. But if he means that I as- 
sailed the character of the State, her 
honor, or patriotism, that I reflected on 
her history or her conduct, he has not 
tlie slightest ground for any such as- 
sumption. I did not even refer, I think, 
in my observations, to any collection of 
individuals. I said nothing of the re- 
cent conventions. I spoke in the most 
guarded and careful manner, and only 
expressed my regret for the publication 
of opinions, which I presumed the hon- 
orable member disapproved as much as 
myself. In this, it seems, I was mis- 
taken. I do not remember that the gen- 
tleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or 
any opinion, of a supposed anti-union 
tendency, which on all or any of the 
recent occasions has been expressed. 
The whole drift of his speech has been 
rather to prove, that, in divers times 
and manners, sentiments equally liable 
to my objection have been avowed in 
New England. And one would suppose 
that his object, in this reference to Mas- 
sachusetts, was to find a precedent to 
justify proceedings in the South, were it 
not for the reproach and contumely with 
which be labors, all along, to load these 
his own chosen precedents. By way of 
defending South Carolina from what he 
chooses to think an attack on her, he 
first quotes the example of IMassachu- 
setts, and then denounces that example 
in good set terms. This twofold pur- 
pose, not very consistent, one would 
think, with itself, was exhibited more 
than once in the course of his speech. 
He referred, for instance, to the Hart- 
ford Convention. Did he do this for 
authority, or for a topic of reproach? 
Apparently for both, for he told us that 



he should find no fault with the mere 
fact of holding such a convention, and 
considering and discussing such que.s- 
tions as he supposes were then and tliere 
discussed; but what rendered it obnox- 
ious was its being held at the time, and 
under the circumstances of the country 
then existing. We were in a war, he 
said, and the country needed all our aid ; 
the hand of government required to be 
strengthened, not weakened; and pa- 
triotism should have postponed such 
proceedings to another <j[ay. The thing 
itself, then, is a precedent; the time and 
manner of it only, a subject of censure. 
Now, Sir, I go much further, on this 
point, than the honorable member. 
Supposing, as the gentleman seems to 
do, that the Hartford Convention assem- 
bled for any such purj-tose as breaking 
up the Union, because they thought un- 
constitutional laws had been passed, or 
to consult on that subject, or lo calculate 
the value of the Union; supposing this 
to be their purpose, or any part of it, 
then I say the meeting itself was dis- 
loyal, and was obnoxious to censure, 
whether held in time of peace or time 
of war, or under whatever circum- 
stances. The material question is the 
object. Is dissolution the object? If it 
be, external circumstances may make it 
a more or less aggravated case, but 
cannot affect the principle. I do not 
hold, therefore. Sir, that the Hartford 
Convention was pardonable, even to the 
extent of the gentleman's admission, if 
its objects were really such as have 
been imputed to it. Sir, there never 
was a time, under any degree of excite- 
ment, in which the Hartford Conven- 
tion, or any other convention, could 
have maintained itself one moment in 
New England, if assembled for any 
such purpose as the gentleman says 
would have been an allijwable purj^ose. 
To hold conventions to decide constitu- 
tional law! To try the binding validity 
of statutes by votes in a convention! 
Sir, the Hartford Convention, I pre- 
sume, would not desire tiiat liie honor- 
able gentleman should be tlieir defender 
or advocate, if he jiuts their case upon 
such untenable and extravagant grounda- 



254 



THE REPLY TO PIAYNE. 



Then, Sir, the gentleman has no 
fault to find with these recently promul- 
gated South Carolina opinions. And 
certainly he need have none; for his 
own sentiments, as now advanced, and 
advanced on reflection, as far as I have 
bocm able to comprehend them, go the 
full length of all these opinions. I pro- 
pose, Sir, to say something on these, 
and to consider how far they are just 
and constitutional. Before doing that, 
however, let me observe that the eulo- 
gium pronounced by the honorable 
uentleman on the character of the State 
of South Carolina, for her Revolu- 
tionary and other merits, meets my 
hearty concurrence. I shall not ac- 
knowledge that the honorable member 
goes before me in regard for whatever 
of distinguished talent, or distinguished 
character. South Carolina has produced. 
T claim part of the honor, I partake in 
the pride, of her great names. I claim 
them for countrymen, one and all, the 
Laurenses, the Rutledges, thePinckneys, 
the Sumpters, the Marions, Americans 
all, whose fame is no more to be 
hemmed in by State lines, than their 
talents and patriotism were capable of 
being circumscribed within the same 
narrow limits. In their day and gen- 
eration, they served and honored the 
country, and the whole country; and 
their renown is of the treasures of the 
whole country. Him whose honored 
name the gentleman himself bears, — 
does he esteem me less capable of grati- 
tude for his patriotism, or sympathy for 
his sufferings, than if his eyes had first 
opened upon the light of Massachusetts, 
instead of South Carolina? Sir, does 
he suppose it in his power to exhibit a 
Carolina name so bright as to produce 
envy in my bosom? No, Sir, increased 
gratification and delight, rather. I 
thank God, that, if I am gifted with 
little of the spirit which is able to raise 
mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as 
I trust, of that other spirit, which would 
drag angels down. When I shall be 
found. Sir, in my place here in the Senate, 
or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, 
because it happens to spring up beyond 
the little limits of my own State or 



neighborhood; when I refuse, for any 
such cause or for any cause, the homage 
due to American talent, to elevated patri- 
otism, to sincere devotion to liberty and 
the country; or, if I see an uncommon 
endowment of Heaven, if I see extraor- 
dinary capacity and virtue, in any son of 
the South, and if, moved by local preju- 
dice or gangrened by State jealousy, 
I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair 
from his just character and just fame, 
may my tongue cleave to the roof of 
my mouth ! 

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollec- 
tions; let me indulge in refreshing re- 
membrance of the past; let me remind 
you that, in early times, no States cher- 
ished greater harmony, both of prin- 
ciple and feeling, than Massachusetts 
and South Carolina. Would to God 
that harmony might again return! 
Shoulder to shoulder they went through 
the Revolution, hand in hand they 
stood round the administration of 
Washington, and felt his own great 
arm lean on them for support. Un- 
kind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and 
distrust are the growth, unnatural to 
such soils, of false principles since 
sown. They are weeds, the seeds of 
which that same great arm never 
scattered. 
^. Mr. President, I shall enter on no en- 
comium upon Massachusetts; she needs 
none. There she is. Behold her, and 
judge for yourselves. There is her his- 
tory ; the world knows it by heart. The 
past, at least, is secure. There is Bos- 
ton, and Concord, and Lexington, and 
Bunker Hill; and there they will re- 
main for ever. The bones of her sons, 
falling in the great struggle for Inde- 
pendence, now lie mingled with the soil 
of every State from New England to 
Georgia; and there they will lie for ever. 
And, Sir, where American Liberty raised 
its first voice, and where its youth was 
nurtm-ed and sustained, there it still 
lives, in the strength of its manhood and 
full of its original spirit. If discord and 
disunion shall wound it, if party strife 
and blind ambition shall hawk at and 
tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasi- 
ness under salutary and necessary re- 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



255 



straint, shall succopd in separating it 
from that Union, by which alone its 
existence is made sure, it will stand, in 
the end, by the side of that cradle in 
which its infancy was rocked; it will 
stretch forth its arm with whatever of 
vigor it may still retain over the friends 
wlio gather round it; and it will fall at 
last, if fall it must, amidst the imnulest 
monuments of its own glory, and on the 
very spot of its origin. 

There yet remains to be performed, 
Mr. President, by far the most grave 
and important duty, which I feel to be 
devolved on me by this occasion. It is 
to state, and to defend, what I conceive 
to be the true principles of the Constitu- 
tion under which we are here assembled. 
I miglit well have desired that so weighty 
a task shoidd have fallen into other and 
abler hands. I could have wished that 
it should have been executed by those 
whose character and experience give 
weight and influence to their opinions, 
such as cannot possibly belong to mine. 
IJut, Sir, I have met the occasion, not 
sought it; and I shall proceed to state 
my own sentiments, without challenging 
for them any particular regard, with 
studied plainness, and as much precision 
as possible. 

I understand the honorable gentleman 
from South Carolina to maintain, that 
it is a right of the State legislatures to 
interfere, whenever, in their judgment, 
this government transcends its constitu- 
tional limits, and to arrest the operation 
of its laws. 

I understand him to maintain this 
right, as a right existing under the Con- 
stitution, not as a right to overthrow it 
on the ground of extreme necessity, such 
as would justify violent revolution. 

I understand him to maintain an au- 
thority, on the part of the States, thus 
to interfere, for the purpose of correct- 
ing the exercise of power by the general 
government, of checking it, and of com- 
pelling it to conform to their opinion of 
the extent of its powers. 

I understand him to maintain, that 
the ultimate power of judging of the 
constitutional extent of its own author- 



ity is not lodged exclusively in the gen- 
eral government, or any branch of it; 
but that, on the contrary, the States 
may lawfully decide for tiiemselves, and 
each State for itself, whether, in a given 
case, the act of the general government 
transcends its power. 

I understand him to insist, that, if the 
exigency of the case, in the opinion of 
any State government, require it, such 
State government may, by its own sov- 
ereign authority, annul an act of the 
general government which it deems 
plainly and palpably unconstitutional. 

This is the sum of what I understand 
from him to be the South Carolina doc- 
trine, and the doctrine which he main- 
tains. I propose to consider it, and 
compare it with the Constitution. Al- 
low me to say, as a preliminary remark, 
that I call this the South Carolina doc- 
trine only because the gentleman him- 
self has so denominated it. I do not 
feel at liberty to say that South Caro- 
lina, as a State, has ever advanced these 
sentiments. I hope she has not, and 
never may. That a great majority of 
her people are opposed to the tariff laws, 
is doubtless true. That a majority, 
somewhat less than that just mentioned, 
conscientiously believe these laws un- 
constitutional, may probably also be 
true. But that any majority liolds to 
the right of direct State interference at 
State discretion, the right of nullifying 
acts of Congress by acts of State legisla- 
tion, is more than I know, and wiiat I 
shall be .slow to believe. 

That there are individuals besides the 
honorable gentleman who do nuiintain 
these opinions, is quite certain. I recol- 
lect the recent expression of a sentiment, 
which circumstances attending its utter- 
ance and pul)lication justify us in sup- 
posing was not unpremeditated. " The 
sovereignty of the State, —never to be 
controlled, construed, or deciilcd on, but 
by her own feelings of honorable jus- 
tice." 

Mr. Ilayno here rose an<l said, that, for 
the purpose of liein^ cl.'suly understood, he 
would slate that liis proposition was in the 
words of the Virginia resolution, as fol- 
lows : — 



256 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



" Tliat this assembly doth explicitly and 
peremptorily declare, that it views tlie pow- 
ers of the federal government as resulting 
fro'm the compact to which the States are 
parties, as limited by the plain sense and 
intention of the instrument constituting 
that compact, as no farther valid than they 
are authorized by the grants enumerated in 
that compact ; and tliat, in case of a delib- 
erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of 
other powers not granted by the said com- 
pact, the States who are parties thereto 
have the right, and are in duty bound, to 
interpose, for arresting the progress of the 
evil, and for maintaining within their re- 
spective limits the authorities, rights, and 
liberties appertaining to them." 

Mr. Webster resumed : — 

I am quite aware, Mr. President, of 
the existence of the resolution which the 
gentleman read, and has now repeated, 
and that he relies on it as his authority. 
I know the source, too, from which it is 
understood to have proceeded. I need 
not say that I have much respect for the 
constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison ; 
they would weigh greatly with me al- 
ways. But before the authority of his 
opinion be vouched for the gentleman's 
proposition, it will be proper to consider 
what is the fair interpretation of that 
resolution, to which Mr. Madison is un- 
derstood to have given his sanction. As 
the gentleman construes it, it is an au- 
thority for him. Possibly he may not 
have adopted the right construction. 
That resolution declares, that, in the 
case of the dangerous exercise of powers 
not granted by the general government, the 
States may interpose to arrest the progress 
of the evil. But how interpose, and 
what does this declaration purport? 
Does it mean no more than that there 
may be extreme cases, in which the peo- 
ple, in any mode of assembling, may 
resist usurpation, and relieve themselves 
from a tyrannical government? No one 
will deny this. Such resistance is not 
only acknowledged to be just in Amer- 
ica, but in England also Blackstone 
admits as nmch, in the theory, and 
practice, too, of the English constitu- 
tion. We, Sir, who oppose the Carolina 
doctrine, do not deny that the people 
may, if they choose, throw off any gov- 



ernment when it becomes oppressive and 
intolerable, and erect a better in its 
stead. We all know that civil institu- 
tions are established for the public bene- 
fit, and that when they cease to answer 
the ends of their existence they may be 
changed. But I do not understand the 
doctrine now contended for to be that, 
which, for the sake of distinction, we 
may call the right of revolution. I un- 
derstand the gentleman to maintain, 
that, without revolution, without civil 
commotion, without rebellion, a remedy 
for supposed abuse and transgression of 
the powers of the general government 
lies in a direct appeal to the interference 
of the State governments. 

Mr Hayne here rose and said : He did 
not contend for the mere right of revo- 
lution, but for the right of constitutional 
resistance. What he maintained was, that 
in case of a plain, palpable violation of the 
Constitution by the general government, a 
State may interpose ; and that this inter- 
position is constitutional. 

Mr. Webster resumed : — 

So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, 
and am happy to find that I did not mis- 
nnderstand him. What he contends for 
is, that it is constitutional to interrupt 
the administration of the Constitution 
itself, in the hands of those who are 
chosen and sworn to administer it, by 
the direct interference, in form of law, 
of the States, in virtue of their sovereign 
capacity. The inherent right in the peo- 
ple to reform their government I do not 
deny; and they have another right, and 
that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, 
without overturning the government. It 
is no doctrine of mine that unconstitu- 
tional laws bind the people. The great 
question is. Whose prerogative is it to 
decide on the constitutionality or uncon- 
stitutionality of the laws? On that, the 
main debate hinges. The proposition, 
that, in case of a supposed violation of 
the Constitution by Congress, the States 
have a constitutional right to interfere 
and annul the law of Congress, is the 
proposition of the gentleman. I do not 
admit it. If the gentleman had in- 
tended no more than to assert the right 
of revolution for justifiable cause, he 



TIIE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



257 



would have said only what all agree to. 
But I cannot conceive that there can be 
a middle course, between submission to 
the laws, when regularly pronounced 
constitutional, on the one hand, and 
open resistance, which is revolution or 
rebellion, on the other. I say, the right 
of a State to annul a law of Congress 
cannot be maintained, but on the ground 
of the inalienable right of man to resist 
oppression; that is to say, upon the 
gi'ound of revolution. I admit that 
there is an ultimate violent remedy, 
above the Constitution and in defiance 
of the Constitution, which may be re- 
sorted to when a revolution is to be jus- 
tified. But T do not admit, that, under 
the Constitution and in conformity with 
it, there is any mode in which a State 
government, as a member of the Union, 
can interfere and stop the progress of 
the genei-al government, by force of her 
own laws, under any circumstances what- 
ever. 

This leads us to inquire into the origin 
of this government and the source of its 
power. Whose agent is it? Is it the 
creature of the State legislatures, or the 
creature of the people ? If the govern- 
ment of the United States be the agent 
of the State governments, then they may 
control it, provided they can agree in the 
manner of controlling it ; if it be the agent 
of the people, then the people alone can 
control it, restrain it, modify, or reform 
it. It is observable enough, that the 
doctrine for which the honorable gentle- 
man contends leads him to the necessity 
of maintaining, not only that this gen- 
eral government is the creature of the 
States, but that it is the creature of each 
of tlie States severally, so that each nuiy 
assert the power for itself of determin- 
ing whether it acts within the limits of 
its authority. It is the servant of four- 
and-twenty masters, of different wills 
and different purposes, and yet bound to 
obey all. This absurdity (for it seems 
no less) arises from a misconception as 
to the origin of this government and its 
true character. It is. Sir, the people's 
Constitution, the people's government, 
made for the people, made by the people, 
and answerable to the people. The peo- 



ple of the United States have declared 
that this Constitution shall be the su- 
preme law. Wt' must eith(»r admit the 
proposition, or dispute their authority. 
The States are, unquestionably, .sover- 
eign, so far as their sovereignty is not 
affected by this supreme law. But the 
State legislatures, as political bodies, 
however sovereign, are yet not sovereign 
over the people. So far as the people 
have given power to the general govern- 
ment, so far the grant is unquestionably 
good, and the government holds of the 
people, and not of the State govermnents. 
We are all agents of the same supreme 
power, the people. The general gov- 
ernment and the State governments 
derive their authority from the same 
source. Neither can, in relation to the 
other, be called primary, though one is 
definite and restricted, and the other 
general and residuary. The national 
government possesses those powers which 
it can be shown the people have con- 
ferred on it, and no more. All the rest 
belongs to the State governments, or to 
the people themselves. So far as the 
people have restrained State sovereignty, 
by the expression of their will, in the 
Constitution of the United States, so 
far, it nuist be admitted. State sover- 
eignty is effectually controllecj. I do 
not contend that it is, or ought to be, 
controlled farther. The sentiment to 
which I have referred propounds that 
State sovereignty is only to be con- 
trolled liy its own "feeling of justice "; 
that is to say, it is not to be controlled 
at all, for one who is to follow his own 
feelings is under no legal control. Now, 
however men may think this ought to 
be, the fact is, that the people of the 
United States have chosen to imjiose 
control on State sovereignties. There 
are those, doubtless, who wish they had 
been left without restraint; but the Con- 
stitution has ordered the matter differ- 
ently. To make war, for in.stance, is 
an exercise of sovereignty; but the Con- 
stitution declares that no State shall 
make war. To coin money is anollier 
exercise of sovereign jxnver; but no 
State is at liberty to coin money. Again, 
the Constitution says that no sovereign 



17 



258 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



State shall be so sovereign as to make 
a treaty. These prohibitions, it must 
be confessed, are a control on the State 
sovereignty of South Carolina, as well 
as of tlie otlier States, which does not 
arise "from her own feelings of honor- 
able justice." The opinion referred to, 
therefore, is in defiance of the plainest 
provisions of the Constitution. 

There are other i^i-oceedings of public 
bodies which have already been alluded 
to, and to which I refer again for the 
purpose of ascertaining more fully what 
is the length and breadth of that doc- 
trine, denominated the Carolina doc- 
trine, which the honorable member has 
now stood up on this floor to maintain. 
In one of them I find it resolved, tliat 
"the tariff of 1828, and every other 
tariff designed to promote one branch 
of industry at the expense of others, is 
contrary to the meaning and intention of 
the federal compact ; and such a danger- 
ous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation 
of povi'er, by a determined majority, 
wielding the general government beyond 
the limits of its delegated powers, as 
calls upon the States wliich compose the 
suffering minority, in their sovereign 
capacity, to exercise the powers which, 
as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon 
thetn, when their compact is violated." 

Ob.serve, Sir, that this resolution 
holds the tariff of 1828, and every other 
tariff designed to promote one branch of 
industry at the expense of another, to 
be such a dangerous, palpable, and de- 
liberate usurpation of power, as calls 
upon the States, in their sovereign ca- 
pacity, to interfere by their own author- 
ity. This denunciation, Mr. President, 
you will please to observe, includes our 
old tariff of 1816, as well as all others; 
because that was established to promote 
the interest of the manufacturers of cot- 
ton, to the manifest and admitted injury 
of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, 
again, that all the qualifications are here 
rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, 
which are necessary to bring the case 
within the gentleman's proposition. 
The tariff is a usurpatiou; it is a dan- 
gerous usurpation ; it is a palpable usur- 
pation; it is a deliberate usurpation. 



It is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls 
upon the States to exercise their right 
of interference. Here is a case, then, 
within the gentleman's principles, and 
all his qualifications of his principles. 
It is a case for action. The Constitution 
is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and 
deliberately violated; and the States 
must interpose their own authority to 
arrest the law. Let us suppose the 
State of South Cai'olina to express this 
same opinion, by the voice of her legis- 
lature. That would be very imposing; 
but what then? Is the voice of one 
State conclusive? It .so happens that, 
at the very moment when South Caro- 
lina resolves that the tariff laws are un- 
constitutional, Pennsylvania and Ken- 
tucky resolve exactly the reverse. They 
hold those laws to be both highly proi^er 
and strictly constitutional. And now, 
Sir, how does the honorable member 
propose to deal with this case ? How 
does he relieve us from this difficulty, 
upon any principle of his? His con- 
struction gets us into it ; how does he 
propose to get us out ? . 

In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, 
deliberate usiu'pation ; Carolina, there- 
fore, may nuUifj^ it, and refuse to pay 
the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both 
clearly constitutional and highly expe- 
dient; and there the duties are to be 
paid. And yet we live under a gov- 
ernment of uniform laws, and under 
a Constitution too, which contains an 
express provision, as it happens, that all 
duties shall be equal in all the States. 
Does not this approach absurdity? 

If there be no power to settle such 
questions, independent of either of the 
States, is not the whole Union a rope of 
sand? Are we not thrown back again, 
precisely, upon the old Confederation ? 

It is too plain to be argued. Four- 
and-twenty interpreters of constitutional 
law, each with a power to decide for 
itself, and none with authority to bind 
anybody else, and this constitutional 
law the only bond of their union! 
"What is such a state of things but a 
mere connection during pleasure, or, to 
use the phraseology of the times, dur- 
ing feeling? And that feeling, too, not 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



259 



the feeling of the people, who estab- 
lished the Coustitntion, but the feeling 
of Uie State governments. 

In another of the ISoutli Carolina ad- 
dresses, having premised that the crisis 
requires " all the concentrated energy of 
passion," an attitude of open resistance 
to the laws of the Union is advised. 
Open resistance to the laws, then, is the 
constitutional remedy, the conservative 
power of the State, which the South 
Carolina doctrines teach for the redress 
of iwlitical evils, real or imaginary. 
And its authors further say, that, ap- 
pealing with confidence to the Consti- 
tution itself, to justify their opinions, 
they cannot consent to try their accuracy 
by the courts of justice. In one sense, 
indeed. Sir, this is assuming an atti- 
tude of open resistance in favor of lib- 
erty. But what sort of liberty? The 
liberty of establishing their own opin- 
ions, in defiance of the opinions of all 
others; the liberty of judging and of 
deciding exclusively themselves, in a 
matter in which others have as much 
right to judge and decide as they; the 
liberty of placing their own opinions 
above the judgment of all others, above 
the laws, and above the Constitution. 
This is tlieir liberty, and this is the fair 
result of tlie proposition contended for 
by the honorable gentleman. Or, it 
may be more properly said, it is identi- 
cal with it, ratlier than a result from it. 

In the same publication we find the 
following: "Previously to our Revolu- 
tion, when the arm of oppression was 
stretched over New England, where did 
our Northern brethren meet with a braver 
sympathy than that which sprung from 
the bosoms of Carolinians? We had no 
extortion, no oppression, no collision 
with the king's ministers, no naviga- 
tion interests springing up, in envious 
rivalry of England." 

This seems extraordinary language. 
Soutli Carolina no collision with the 
king's ministers in 1775! No extor- 
tion! No oppression! But, Sir, it is 
also most significant language. Does 
any man doubt the purpose for which it 
was penned? Can any one fail to see 
that it was designed to raise in the read- 



er's mind the question, whether, (it t/iin 
time, — that is to say, in 18"J8, — South 
Carolina has any collision with the king's 
ministers, any oppression, or extortion, 
to fear from England? whether, in 
short, England is not as natm-ally the 
friend of South Carolina as New Eng- 
land, with her navigation interests 
springing uj) in envious rivalry of Eng- 
land? 

Is it not strange. Sir, that an intelli- 
gent man in South Carolina, in 1828, 
should thus labor to prove that, in 1775, 
there was no hostility, no cau.se of war, 
between South Carolina and England? 
That she had no occasion, in reference 
to her own interest, or from a regard to 
her own welfare, to take up arms in the 
Revolutionai'y contest? Can any one 
account for the expression of such st range 
sentiments, and their circulation through 
the State, otherwise than by supposing 
the object to be what I have already in- 
timated, to raise tlie question, if they 
had no ^^ cnUition'" (mark the expres- 
sion) with the ministers of King George 
the Third, in 1775, what collision have 
they, in 1828, with the mini.sters of King 
George the Fourth? What is there now, 
in the existing state of things, to sepa- 
rate Carolina from Old, more, or rather, 
than from New England? 

Resolutions, Sir, have been recently 
passed by the legislature of South Car- 
olina. I need not refer to them; they 
go no farther than the honorable gentle- 
man himself has gone, and I hope not 
so far. I content myself, therefore, 
with debating the matter with him. 

And now, Sir, w-hat I have first to say 
on this subject is, that at no time, and 
under no circumstances, has New Eng- 
land, or any State in New England, or 
any respectable body of jwrsons in New 
England, or any public man of stand- 
ing in New England, put forth such a 
doctrine as this Carolina doctrine. 

'J'he gentlenian has found no case, he 
can find none, to support his own opin- 
ions by New England authority. New 
England has studied the Constitution in 
other schools, and under other teachers. 
She looks upon it with other regards, 
and deems more highly and reverently 



260 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



both of its just authority and its utility 
and excellence. The history of her legis- 
lative proceedings may be traced. The 
epheineral effusions of temporary bodies, 
called together by the excitement of the 
occasion, may be hunted up; they have 
been hunted up. The opinions and 
votes of her public men, in and out of 
Congress, may be explored. It yvUl all 
be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can 
derive from her neither countenance nor 
support. She rejects it now ; she always 
did reject it ; and till she loses her senses, 
she always will reject it. The honor- 
able member has referred to expressions 
on the subject of the embargo law, made 
in this place, by an honorable and ven- 
erable gentleman,^ now favoring us with 
his presence. He quotes that distin- 
guished Senator as saying, that, in his 
judgment, the embargo law was unconsti- 
tutional, and that therefore, in his opin- 
ion, the people were not bound to obey 
it. That, Sir, is perfectly constitutional 
language. An unconstitutional law is 
not binding ; hut then it does not rest with 
a resolution or a law of a State legislature 
to decide whether an act of Congress he or 
he not constitutional. An unconstitu- 
tional act of Congress would not bind 
the jieople of this District, although they 
have no legislature to interfei-e in their 
behalf; and, on the other hand, a con- 
stitutional law of Congress does bind 
the citizens of every State, although a]l 
their legislatures should undertake to 
annul it by act or resolution. The ven- 
erable Connecticut Senator is a consti- 
tutional lawyer, of sound principles and 
enlarged knowledge; a statesman prac- 
tised and experienced, bred in the com- 
pany of Washington, and holding just 
views upon the nature of our govern- 
ments, lie believed the embargo un- 
constitutional, and so did others; but 
what then? Who did he suppose was 
to decide that question? The State leg- 
islatures? Certainly not. No such sen- 
timent ever escaped his lips. 

Let us follow up. Sir, this New Eng- 
land opposition to the embargo laws; 
let us trace it, till we discern the princi- 
ple which controlled and governed New 
1 Mr. Tlillhouse, of Connecticut. 



England throughout the whole course 
of that opposition. We shall then see 
what similarity there is between the 
New England school of constitutional 
opinions, and this modern Carolina 
school. The gentleman, I think, read 
a petition from some single individual 
addressed to the legislature of Massachu- 
setts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; 
that is, the right of State interference 
to arrest the laws of the Union. The 
fate of that petition shows the senti- 
ment of the legislature. It met no 
favor. The opinions of Massacliusetts 
were very different. They had been ex- 
pressed in 1798, in answer to the reso- 
lutions of Virginia, and she did not 
depart from them, nor bend them to 
the times. Misgoverned, wronged, op- 
pressed, as she felt herself to he, she 
still held fast her integrity to the Union. 
The gentleman may find in her proceed- 
ings much evidence of dissatisfaction 
with the measures of government, and 
great and deep dislike to the embargo ; 
all this makes the case so much the 
stronger for her; for, notwithstanding 
all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she 
still claimed no right to sever the bonds 
of the Union. There was heat, and 
there was anger in her political feeling. 
Be it so ; but neither her heat nor her 
anger betrayed her into infidelity to the 
government. The gentleman labors to 
prove that she disliked the embargo as 
much as South Carolina dislikes the 
tariff, and expressed her dislike as 
strongly. Be it so ; but did she propose 
the Carolina remedy? did she threaten 
to interfere, by State authority, to annul 
the laws of the Union? That is the 
question for the gentleman's consider- 
ation. 

No doubt, Sir, a great majority of the 
people of New England conscientiously 
believed the embargo law of 1807 uncon- 
stitutional ; as conscientiously, certainly, 
as the people of South Carolina hold that 
opinion of the tariff. They reasoned 
thus: Congress has power to regulate 
commerce ; but here is a law, they said, 
stopping all commerce, and stopping it 
indefinitely. The law is perpetual ; that 
is, it is not limited in point of time, and 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



261 



must of course continue until it shall be 
repealed by some other law. It is as 
perjtetaal, therefore, as the law against 
treason or niurder. Xow, is this regu- 
lating commerce, or destroying it? Is 
it guiding, controlling, giving tlie rule 
to commerce, as a subsisting thing, or is 
it putting an end to it altogether? 
Nothing is more certain, than that a 
majority in New England deemed this 
law a violation of the Constitution. 
The very case required by the gentle- 
man to justify State interference had 
then 8,risen. Massachusetts believed 
this law to be "a deliberate, palpable, 
and dangerous exercise of a power not 
gi-anted by the Constitution." Delib- 
erate it was, for it was long continued; 
palpable she thought it, as no words in 
the Constitution gave the power, and 
only a construction, in her opinion most 
violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since 
it threatened utter ruin to her most im- 
portant interests. Here, then, was a 
Carolina case. IIow did Massachusetts 
deal with it? It was, as she thought, a 
plain, manifest, palpable violation of 
the Constitution, and it brought ruin to 
her doors. Thousands of families, and 
hundreds of thousands of individuals, 
were beggared by it. While she saw 
and felt all this, she saw and felt also, 
that, as a measure of national policy, it 
was perfectly futile; that the country 
was no way benefited by that which 
caused so much individual distress ; that 
it was efficient only for the production 
of evil, and all that evil inflicted on 
ourselves. In such a case, under such 
circumstances, how did Massachusetts 
demean herself? Sir, she remonstrated, 
she memorialized, she addressed herself 
to the general government, not exactly 
" with the concentrated energy of pas- 
sion," but with her own strong sense, 
and the energy of sober conviction. But 
she did not interpose the arm of her own 
power to arrest the law, and break the 
embargo. Far from it. Her principles 
bound her to two things ; and she fol- 
lowed her principles, lead where they 
might. First, to submit to every con- 
stitutional law of Congress, and sec- 
ondly, if the constitutional validity of 



the law be doubted, to refer that question 
to the decision of the proper tribunals. 
The first principle is vain and iiiflYcct- 
ual without the second. A majority of 
us in New England believed tlie em- 
bargo law imconstitutional; but the 
great question was, and always will be in 
such cases, Who is to decide this? Who 
is to judge between the people and the 
government? And, Sir, it is quite 
lilain, that the Constitution of the Unit- 
ed States confers on the government 
itself, to be exercised by its api)r()priate 
department, and under its own resjion- 
sibility to the people, this power of de- 
ciding idtimately and conclusively upon 
the just extent of its own authority. If 
this had not been done, we should not 
have advanced a single step beyond the 
old Confederation. 

Being fully of opinion that the em- 
bargo law was unconstitutional, the 
people of New England were yet i'(iually 
clear in the opinion, (it was a matter 
they did doubt upon,) that the ques- 
tion, after all, must be decided by the 
judicial tribunals of the United States. 
Before those tribunals, therefore, they 
brought the question. Under the pro- 
visions of the law, they had given 
bonds to millions in amount, and which 
were alleged to be forfeited. They 
suffered the bonds to be sued, and 
thus raised the question. In the old- 
fashioned way of settling disputes, they 
went to law. 'I'he case came to hearing 
and solemn argument; and he who es- 
poused their cause, and stood up for 
them against the validity of the em- 
bargo act, was none other than that 
great man, of whom the geutU-nian has 
made honorable mention, Samuel Dex- 
ter. He was then, Sir, in tlie ftdness 
of his knowledge, and the maturity of 
his strength. He liad retired from long 
and distinguisiu'd public service here, 
to the renewed jmrsuit uf ]>rof»'ssi(inal 
duties, carrying witii him all tluit en- 
largement and exitansion, all tlif new 
strength and force, which an a<<iuaint- 
ance with the more general subjectij 
discussed in the national councils is 
capable of adding to jirofessional attain- 
ment, in a mind of true greatness and 



262 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



comprehension. He was a lawyer, and 
he was also a statesman. He had 
studied the Constitution, when he filled 
public station, that he might defend it; 
he had examined its principles that he 
might maintain them. More than all 
men, or at least as much as any man, 
he was attached to the general govern- 
ment and to the union of the States. 
Ilis feelings and opinions all ran in that 
direction. A question of constitutional 
law, too, was, of all subjects, that one 
which was best suited to his talents and 
learning. Aloof from technicality, and 
unfettered by artificial rule, such a 
question gave opportunity for that deep 
and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of 
principle, wliich so much distinguished 
his higher efforts. His very statement 
was argument; his inference seemed 
demonstration. The earnestness of his 
own conviction wrought conviction in 
others. One was convinced, and be- 
lieved, and assented, because it was 
gratifying, delightful, to think, and 
feel, and believe, in unison with an in- 
tellect of such evident superiority. 

Mr. Dexter, Sir, such as I have de- 
scribed him, argued the New England 
cause. He put into his effort his whole 
heart, as well as all the powers of his 
understanding; for he had avowed, in 
the most public manner, his entire con- 
currence with his neighbors on the 
point in dispute. He argued the cause; 
it was lost, and New England sub- 
mitted. The established tribunals pro- 
nounced the law constitutional, and 
New England acquiesced. Now, Sir, is 
not this the exact opposite of the doc- 
trine of the gentleman from South Caro- 
lina? According to him, instead of 
I'eferring to the judicial tribunals, we 
should luive broken \ip the embargo by 
laws of our own ; we should have re- 
pealed it, quoad New England; for we 
had a strong, palpable, and oppressive 
case. Sir, we believed the embargo 
unconstitutional; but still that was 
matter of opinion, and who was to de- 
cide it? We thought it a clear case; 
but, nevertheless, we did not take the 
law into our own hands, because we did 
not wish to bring about a revolution, 



nor to break up the Union ; for I main- 
tain, that between submission to the 
decision of the constituted tribunals, 
and revolution, or disunion, there is no 
middle ground; there is no ambiguous 
condition, half allegiance and half re- 
bellion. And, Sir, how futile, how 
very futile it is, to admit the right of 
State interference, and then attempt to 
save it from the character of unlawful 
resistance, by adding terms of qualifica- 
tion to the causes and occasions, leaving 
all these qualifications, like the case it- 
self, in the discretion of the Stat^ gov- 
ernments. It must be a clear case, it is 
said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, 
a dangerous 'case. But then the State 
is still left at liberty to decide for her- 
self what is clear, what is deliberate, 
what is palpable, what is dangerous. 
Do adjectives and epithets avail any 
thing? 

Sir, the human mind is so consti- 
tuted, that the merits of both sides of a 
controversy appear very clear, and very 
palpable, to those who respectively es- 
pouse them; and both sides usually 
grow clearer as the controversy ad- 
vances. South Carolina sees uncon- 
stitutionality in the tariff; she sees 
oppression there also, and she sees 
danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision 
not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, 
and sees no such thing in it; she sees it 
all constitutional, all useful, all safe. 
The faith of South Carolina is strength- 
ened by opposition, and she now not 
only sees, but resolves, that the tarifE 
is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, 
and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not 
to be behind her neighbors, and equally 
willing to strengtlien her own faith by a 
confident asseveration, resolves, also, and 
gives to every warm affirmative of 
South Carolina, a plain, downriglit, 
Pennsylvania negative. South Caro- 
lina, to show the strength and unity of 
her opinion, brings her assembly to a 
unanimity, within seven voices; Penn- 
sylvania, not to be outdone in this re- 
spect any more than in others, reduces 
her dissentient fraction to a single vote. 
Now, Sir, again, I ask the gentleman, 
What is to be done? Are these States 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



203 



both right? Is he bound to consider 
them both right? If not, which is in 
the wrong? or rather, which has the 
best right to decide? And if he, and if 
I, are not to know what the Constitu- 
tion means, and what it is, till those 
two State legislatures, and the twenty- 
two others, shall agree in its construc- 
tion, what have we sworn to, when we 
have sworn to maintain it? 1 was for- 
cibly struck, Sir, with one i-eflection, as 
the gentleman went on in his speech. 
He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions, 
to prove, that a State may interfere, in 
a case of deliberate, palpable, and dan- 
gerous exercise of a power not granted. 
The honorable member supposes the 
tariff law to be such an exercise of 
power; and that consequently a case 
has arisen in which the State may, if it 
see fit, interfere by its own law. Now 
it so hapjiens, nevertheless, that Mr. 
Madison deems this same tariff law 
quite constitutional. Instead of a clear 
and palpable violation, it is, in his 
judgment, no violation at all. So that, 
while they use his authority for a hypo- 
thetical case, they reject it in the very 
case before them. All this. Sir, shows 
the inherent futility, I had almost used 
a stronger word, of conceding this 
power of interference to the State, and 
then attempting to secure it from abuse 
by imposing qualifications of whicli the 
States themselves are to judge. One of 
two things is true; either the laws of 
the Union are beyond the discretion and 
beyond the control of the States; or 
else we have no constitution of general 
goverxmient, and are thrust back again 
to the days of the Confederation. 

Let me here say, Sir, that if the gen- 
tleman's doctrine had been received and 
acted upon in New England, in the 
times of the embargo and non-inter- 
course, we should probably not now 
have been here. The government would 
very likely liave gone to pieces, and 
crumbled into dust. No stronger case 
can ever arise than existed under those 
laws; no States can ever entertain a 
clearer conviction than the New Eng- 
land States then entertained ; and if 
they had been under the influence of 



that heresy of opinion, as I must call 
it, which tlie honorable member es- 
pouses, this Union would, in all proba- 
bility, have been scattered to the four 
winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, 
to apply his principles to tliat case; I 
ask him to come forth and declare, 
whether, in his opinion, the New Eng- 
land States would have been justifieil 
in interfering to break up the embargo 
system under the conscientious opinions 
which they held upon it? Had they a 
right to annul that law? Does he ad- 
mit or deny? If what is thought pal- 
pably imconstitutional in South Caro- 
lina justifies that State in arresting the 
progress of the law, tell me wliether 
that which was thought palpably uncon- 
stitutional also in INlassachusetts would 
have justified her in doing the same 
thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. 
It has not a foot of ground in the Con- 
stitution to stand on. No public man 
of reputation ever advanced it in Massa- 
chusetts in the warmest times, or could 
maintain himself ujx)n it there at any 
time. 

I wish now, Sir, to make a remark 
upon the Virginia resolutions of 17!)8. 
I cannot undertake to say how these 
resolutions were understood by those 
who passed them. Their language ia 
not a little indefinite. In the case of 
the exercise by Congress of a danger- 
ous power not granted to tliem, the 
resolutions assert the right, on tiie part 
of the State, to interfere ami arrest the 
progress of the evil. This is suscepti- 
ble of more than one interjiretatiDU. It 
nuxy mean no more tium tiiat liie States 
may interfere by complaint and remon- 
strance, or by proposing to tlie people 
an alteration of the Federal Constitu- 
tion. This would all be (juite unob- 
jectionable. Or it may be tliat no more 
is meant than to assert tiie general 
right of revolution, as against all gov- 
ernments, in cases of intolerable ojv 
pression. 'J'iiis no one dnnltts, and this, 
in my opinion, is all that he wlio framed 
the resolutions could have meant by it; 
for I shall not readily believe that he 
was ever of opinion that a .Stat<>, under 
the Constitution and in conformity with 



264 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



it, could, upon the ground of her own 
opinion of its unconstitutionality, how- 
ever clear and palpable she might think 
the case, annul a law of Congress, so 
far as it should operate on herself by 
her own legislative power. 

I must now beg to ask, Sir, "Whence is 
this supposed right of the States derived? 
^Vhere do they find the power to inter- 
fere with the laws of the Union? Sir, 
the opinion which the honorable gentle- 
man maintains is a notion founded in a 
total misapprehension, in my judgment, 
of the origin of this government, and of 
the foundation on which it stands. I 
hold it to be a popular government, 
erected by the people ; those who admin- 
ister it, responsible to the people; and 
itself capable of being amended and 
modified, just as the people may choose 
it should be. It is as popular, just as 
truly emanating from the people, as the 
State governments. It is created for 
one purpose ; the State governments for 
another. It has its own powers; they 
have tiieirs. There is no more authority 
with them to arrest the operation of a 
law of Congress, than with Congress to 
arrest the operation of their laws. We 
are here to administer a Constitution 
emanating immediately from the people, 
and trusted by them to our administra- 
tion. It is not the creature of the State 
governments. It is of no moment to 
the argument, that certain acts of the 
State legislatures are necessary to fill 
our seats in this body. That is not one 
of their original State powers, a part of 
the sovereignty of the State. It is a 
duty which the people, by the Constitu- 
tion itself, have imposed on the State 
legislatures ; and which they might have 
left to be performed elsewhere, if they 
had seen fit. So they have left the 
choice of President with electors; but 
all this does not affect the proposition 
that this whole government. President, 
Senate, and House of Representatives, 
is a popular government. It leaves it 
still all its popular character. The 
governor of a State (in some of the 
States) is chosen, not directly by the 
people, but by those who are chosen by 



the people, for the purpose of perform- 
ing, among other duties, that of electing 
a governor. Is the government of the 
State, on that account, not a popular 
government? This government. Sir, is 
the independent offspring of the popular 
will. It is not the creature of State 
legislatures ; nay, more, if the whole 
truth must be told, the people brought 
it into existence, established it, and 
have hitherto supported it, for the very 
purpose, amongst others, of imposing 
certain salutary restraints on State sov- 
ereignties. The States cannot now 
make war; they cannot contract alli- 
ances; they cannot make, each for itself, 
separate regulations of commerce ; they 
cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin 
money. If this Constitution, Sir, be 
the creature of State legislatures, it 
must be admitted that it has obtained 
a strange control over the volitions of 
its creators. 

The people, then, Sir, erected this 
government. They gave it a Constitu- 
tion, and in that Constitution they have 
enumerated the powers which they be- 
stow on it. They have made it a lim- 
ited government. They have defined 
its authority. They have restrained it 
to the exercise of such powers as are 
granted; and all others, they declare, 
ai-e reserved to the States or the people. 
But, Sir, they have not stopped here. 
If they had, they would have accom- 
plished but half their work. No defini 
tion can be so clear, as to avoid possibil- 
ity of doubt; no limitation so precise 
as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, 
then, shall construe this grant of the 
people? Who shall interpret their will, 
where it may be supposed they have left 
it doubtful? With whom do they re- 
pose this ultimate right of deciding on 
the pQwers of the government? Sir, 
they have settled all this in the fullest 
manner. They have left it with the 
government itself, in its appropriate 
branches. Sir, the very chief end, the 
main design, for which the whole Con- 
stitution was framed and adopted, was 
to establish a government that should 
not be obliged to act through State 
agency, or depend on State opinion and 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



265 



State discretion. The people had had 
quite enough of that kind of govern- 
ment under tlie Confederation. Under 
that system, the legal action, the appli- 
cation of law to individuals, belonged 
exclusively to the States. Congress 
could only recommend; their acts were 
not of binding force, till the States had 
adopted and sanctioned them. Are we 
in that condition still? Are we yet 
at the mercy of State discretion and 
State construction? Sir, if we are, then 
vain will be our attempt to maintain the 
Constitution under which we sit. 

But, Sir, the people have wisely pro- 
vided, in the Constitution itself, a 
proper, suitable mode and tribunal for 
settling questions of constitutional law. 
There are in the Constitution grants of 
powers to Congress, and restrictions on 
these powers. There are, also, prohibi- 
tions on the States. Some authority 
nuist, therefore, necessarily exist, hav- 
ing the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and 
ascertain the interpretation of these 
grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. 
The Constitution has itself pointed out, 
ordained, and established that authority. 
How has it accomplished this great and 
essential end? By declaring. Sir, that 
" the Conslitution, and the laws of (he 
United States made in pursuance thereof, 
shall be the supreme law of the land, any 
thing in the constitution or laws of ant/ 
State to the contrary notwithstanding.^' 

.This, Sir, was the first great step. By 
this the supremacy of the Constitution 
and laws of the United States is de- 
clared. The people so will it. Xo 
State law is to be valid which comes in 
conflict witli the Constitution, or any 
law of the United States passed in pur- 
suance of it. But who shall decide tliis 
question of interference? To whom lies 
the last appeal? This, Sir, the Con.sti- 
tution itself decides also, by declaring, 
, '■'■that the judicial power shall extend to 
j all cases arising under the Constitution 
and laws of the United States. '' These 
two provisions cover the whole ground. 
They are, in truth, the keystone of the 
arch! With these it is a government; 
without them it is a confederation. In 
pursuance of these clear and express 



provisions. Congress established, at its 
very first session, in the judicial act, a 
mode for carrying them into full effect, 
and for bringing all questions of consti- 
tutional power to the final decision of 
the Supreme Court. It then, Sir, be- 
came a government. It then liad the 
means of self-protection; and but for 
this, it would, in all probability, have 
been now among things which are past. 
Having constituted the government, and 
declared its powers, the people have fur- 
ther said, that, since somebody must 
decide on the extent of these powers, 
the government shall it.self decide ; sub- 
ject, always, like other popular govern- 
ments, to its responsibility to the people. 
And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it that a 
State legislature acquires any power to 
interfere? Who, or what, gives them 
the right to say to the people, "We, who 
are your agents and servants for one pur- 
pose, will undertake to decide, that your 
other agents and servants, appointed by 
you for another purpose, h.ave transcend- 
ed the authority you gave them ! " The 
reply would be, I think, not inqiertinent, 
"Who made you a judge over anoth- 
er's servants? To their own masters 
they stand or fall." 

Sir, I deny this power of State legis- 
latures altogether. It cannot stand the 
test of examination. Gentlemen may 
say, that, in an extreme ca.se, a State 
government might protect the people 
from intolerable oppression. Sir, in 
such a case, the people might protect 
themselves, without the aid of the State 
governments. Such a case warrants 
revolution. It must make, wlien it 
comes, a law for itself. A nullifying 
act of a State legislature cannot alter 
the case, nor make resistance any more 
lawful. In maintaining these senti- 
ments, Sir, I am but asserting the riglits 
of the, jieople. I state; what tliey liave 
declared, and insist on th.-ir riglit to de- 
clare it. They have chosen to repise 
tills power in the general government, 
and 1 thinkitmyduty tosupi>ort it. like 
other constitutional ix)wers. 

For myself. Sir, I do not admit the 
competency of South Carolina, or any 
other State, to prescribe my constitu- 



266 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



tional duty.; or to settle, between me 
and the people, the validity of laws of 
Congress for which I have voted. I 
decline her umpirage. I have not sworn 
to support the Constitution according to 
her construction of its clauses. I have 
not stipulated, by my oath of office or 
otherwise, to come under any responsi- 
bility, except to the people, and those 
whom they have appointed to pass upon 
the question, whether laws, supported 
by my votes, conform to the Constitu- 
tion of the country. And, Sir, if we 
look to the general nature of the case, 
could any thing have been more prepos- 
terous, than to make a government for 
the whole Union, and yet leave its pow- 
ers subject, not to one interpretation, 
but to thirteen or twenty-four interpre- 
tations? Instead of one tribunal, estab- 
lished by all, responsible to all, with 
power to decide for all, shall constitu- 
tional questions be left to four-and- 
twenty popular bodies, each at liberty 
to decide for itself, and none bound to 
respect the decisions of others, — and 
each at liberty, too, to give a new con- 
struction on every new election of its 
own members? Would any thing, with 
such a principle in it, or rather with 
such a destitution of all principle, be fit 
to be called a government? No, Sir. 
It should not be denominated a Consti- 
tution. It should be called, rather, 
a collection of topics for everlasting 
controversy; heads of debate for a dis- 
putatious people. It would not be a 
government. It would not be adequate 
to any practical good, or fit for any 
country to live under. 

To avoid all possibility of being mis- 
understood, allow me to repeat again, in 
the fullest manner, that I claim no pow- 
ers for the government by forced or un- 
fair construction. I admit that it is a 
government of strictly limited powei-s; 
of enumerated, specified, and particular- 
ized powers; and that whatsoever is not 
granted, is withheld. But notwithstand- 
ing all this, and however the grant of 
powers may be expressed, its limit and 
extent may yet, in some cases, admit 
of doubt; and the general government 
would be good for nothing, it would be 



incapable of long existing, if some mode 
had not been provided in which those 
doubts, as they should arise, might be 
peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. 

And now, Mr. President, let me run 
the honorable gentleman's doctrine a lit- 
tle into its practical application. Let us 
look at his probable modus operandi. If a 
thing can be done, an ingenious man can 
tell how it is to be done, and I wish to 
be informed hoiv this State interference 
is to be put in practice, without violence, 
bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take 
the existing case of the tariff law. 
South Carolina is said to have made up 
her opinion upon it. If we do not 
repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) 
she will then apply to the case the rem- 
edy of her doctrine. She will, we must 
suppose, pass a law of her legislature, 
declaring the several acts of Congress 
usually called the tariff laws null and 
void, so far as they respect South Caro- 
lina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all 
is a paper transaction, and easy enough. 
But the collector at Charleston is col- 
lecting the duties imposed by these tariff 
laws. He, therefore, must be stopped. 
The collector will seize the goods if the 
tariff duties are not paid. The State 
authorities will undertake their rescue, 
the marshal, with his posse, will come 
to the collector's aid, and here the con- 
test begins. The militia of the State 
will be called out to sustain the nullify- 
ing act. They will march. Sir, under a 
vei-y gallant leader; for I believe the 
honorable member himself commands 
the militia of that part of the State. 
He will raise the nullifying act on 
his standard, and spread it out as his 
banner! It will have a preamble, set- 
ting forth that the tariff laws are palpa- 
ble, deliberate, and dangerous violations 
of the Constitution! He will proceed, 
with this banner flying, to the custom- 
house in Charleston, 

"All the while 
Sonorous metal blowing martial soiiiuls " 

Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell 
the collector that he must collect no 
more duties under any of the tariff laws. 
This he will be somewhat puzzled to say, 
by the way, with a grave countenance, 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



267 



considering what hand South Carolina 
herself had in that of 1816. But, Sir, 
the collector would not, probably, desist, 
at liis bidding. He would show him 
the law of Congress, the treasury instruc- 
tion, and his own oath of office. He 
would say, he should perform liis duty, 
come what come might. 

Here would ensue a pause; for they 
say that a certain stillness precedes the 
tempest. The trumpeter would hold his 
breath awhile, and before all this mili- 
tary array should fall on the custom- 
house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very 
probable some of those composing it 
•would request of their gallant com- 
mander-in-chief to be informed a little 
upon the point of law; for they have, 
doubtless, a just respect for his opinions 
as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery 
as a soldier. They know he has. read 
Blackstone and the Constitution, as well 
as Turenne and Vauban. They would 
ask him, therefore, something concern- 
ing their rights in this matter. They 
would inquire, whether it was not some- 
what dangerous to resist a law of the 
United States. What would be the na- 
ture of their offence, they would wish 
to learn, if they, by military force and 
array, resisted the execution in Carolina 
of a law of the United States, and it 
should turn out, after all, that the law 
was constitutional? He would answer, 
, of course, Ti-eason. No lawyer could 
give any other answer. Jolni Fries, he 
would tell them, had learned tliat, some 
years ago. How, then, they would ask, 
do you propose to defend us? We are 
not afraid of bullets, but treason has a 
way of taking people off that we do not 
much relish. How do you propose to 
defend us? "Look at my floating ban- 
ner," he would reply; "see there the 
nullifying hvo ! '' Is it your opinion, 
gallant commander, they would then 
say, that, if we should be indicted 
for treason, that same floating banner 
of yours would make a good plea in 
bar? " South Carolina is a sovereign 
State," he would reply. That is true; 
but would the judge admit our plea? 
"These tariff laws," he would repeat, 
" are unconstitutional, palpably, delib- 



erately, dangerously." That may all be 
so; but if the tribunal sliould not hajv 
pen to be of tliat opinion, shall we swing 
for it? We are ready to die for our coun- 
try, but it is rather an awkward business, 
this dying without touching tlie ground! 
After all, that is a sort of hemp tax 
worse tluui any part of tlie tariff. 

Mr. President, the honorable gentle- 
man would be in a dilcnnna, like tliat of 
another great general. He would have 
a knot before him which he could not 
untie. He must cut it with his sword. 
He must say to his followers, " Defend 
yourselves with your bayonets"; and 
this is war, — civil war. 

Direct collision, therefore, between 
force and force, is the unavoidable re- 
sult of that remedy for the revision of 
unconstitutional laws whicii the gentle- 
man contends for. It must iiappen in 
the very first case to which it is applied. 
Is not this the plain result? To resist 
by force the execution of a law, gener- 
ally, is treason. Can the courts of the ] 
United States take notice of the indul- 
gence of a State to commit treason? The 
common saying, that a State cannot 
commit treason herself, is nothing to the 
purpose. Can she authorize others to 
do it? If John Fries had produced an 
act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law 
of Congress, w'ould it have helped his 
case? Talk about it as we will, these 
doctrines go the length of revolution. 
They are incompatible with any peace- 
able administration of the government. 
They lead directly to disunion and civil 
commotion; and therefore it is, tliat at 
their commencement, wiien they are 
first found to be maintained by re- 
spectable men, and in a tangible form, 
I enter my public protest against them 
all. 

The honorable gentleman argues, that, 
if this government be the sole judge of 
the extent of its own powers, wliether 
that right of judging l)e in Congress or 
the Supreme Court, it eipially subverts 
State sovereignty. Tliis tlie gentleman 
sees, or thinks he .sees, altliougli lie can- 
not perceive how tlie right of judging, 
in this matter, if Ifft to tlie exercise of 
State legislatures, has any tendency to 



2'J8 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



subvert the government of the Union. 
The gentleman's opinion may be, that 
the rigiit oiuiht not to have been lodged 
with the general government; he may 
like better such a constitution as wq 
should have under tlie right of State in- 
terference; but 1 ask him to meet me on 
the plain matter of fact. I ask him to 
meet me on the Constitution itself. I 
ask him if the power is not found there, 
clearly and visibly found there? 

But, Sir, what is this danger, and 
what are the gi-ounds of it? Let it be 
remembered, that the Constitution of 
the United States is not unalterable. It 
is to continue in its present form no 
longer than the people who established 
it shall choose to continue it. If they 
shall become convinced that the^^ have 
made an injudicious or inexpedient par- 
tition and distribution of power between 
the State governments and the general 
government, they can alter that distribu- 
tion at will. 

If any thing be found in the national 
Constitution, either by original provision 
or subsequent interpretation, which 
ought not to be in it, the people know 
how to get rid of it. If any construc- 
tion, unacceptable to them, be estab- 
lished, so as to become practically a 
part of the Constitution, they will amend 
it, at their own sovereign pleasure. But 
while the people choose to maintain it 
as it is, while they are satisfied with it, 
and refuse to change it, who has given, 
or who can give, to the State legislatures 
a right to alter it, eitlier by interference, 
construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen 
do not seem to recollect that the people 
have any power to do any thing for 
themselves. They imagine there is no 
safety for them, any longer than they 
are under the close guardianship of the 
State legislatures. Sir, the people have 
not trusted their safety, in regard to 
the general Constitution, to these hands. 
They have required other security, and 
taken other bonds. They have chosen 
to trust themselves, first, to the plain 
words of the instrument, and to such 
construction as the government them- 
selves, in doubtful cases, should put on 
their own powers, under their oaths of 



office, and subject to their responsibility 
to them; just as the people of a State 
tru.st their own State governments with 
a similar power. Secondly, they have 
reposed their trust in the efficacy of f re- ' 
quent elections, and in their own power 
to remove their own servants and agents 
whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they} 
have reposed trust in the judicial power, | 
which, in order that it might be trust- 
worthy, they have made as respectable, 'i 
as disinterested, and as independent as ! 
was practicable. Fourthly, they have 
seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or 
high expediency, on their known and 
admitted power to alter or amend the 
Constitution, peaceably and quietly, 
whenever experience shall point out de- 
fects or imperfections. And, finally, 
the people of the United States have 
at no time, in no way, directly or in- 
directly, authorized any State legislature 
to construe or interpret their high instru- 
ment of government; much le.ss, to in- 
terfere, by their own power, to arrest 
its course and operation. 

If, Sir, the people in these respects 
had done otherwise than they have done, 
their Constitution could neitlier have 
been preserved, nor would it have been 
worth preserving. And if its plain pro- 
visions shall now be disregarded, and 
these new doctrines interpolated in it, 
it will become as feeble and helpless a 
being as its enemies, whether early or 
more recent, could possibly desire. It 
will exist in every State but as a poor 
dependent on State permission. It must 
borrow leave to be; and will be, no lon- 
ger than State pleasure, or State discre- 
tion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, 
a^ to prolong its poor existence. 

But, Sir, although there are fears, 
there are hopes also. The people liave 
preserved this, their own chosen Consti- 
tution, for forty years, and have seen 
their happiness, prosperity, and renown 
grow with its growth, and strengthen 
with its strength. They are now, gen- 
erally, strongly attached to it. Over- 
thrown by direct assault, it cannot be; 
evaded, undermined, nullified, it will 
not be, if we and those who shall suc- 
ceed us here, as agents and representa- 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



2G9 



tives of the people, shall conscientiously 
and vigilantly discharge the two great 
branches of our public trust, faithfully 
to preserve, and wisely to administer it. 
''\ Mr. I'resident, 1 have thus stated the 
reasons of my dissent to the doctrines 
■which have been advanced and main- 
tained. I am conscious of having de- 
tained you and the Senate much too 
long. I was drawn into the debate 
with no previous deliberation, such as is 
suited to the discussion of so grave and 
important a subject. But it is a subject 
of which my heart is full, and I have 
not been willing to suppress the titter- 
ance of its spontaneous sentiments. I 
cannot, even nosv, persuade myself to 
relinquish it, without expressing once 
more my deep conviction, that, since it 
respects nothing less than the Union of 
the States, it is of most vital and essen- 
tial importance to the public happiness. 
I profess. Sir, in my career hitherto, to 
have kept steadily in view the prosperity 
and honor of the whole country, and the 
preservation of our Federal Union. It 
is to that Union we owe otir safety at 
home, and our consideration and dignity 
abroad. It is to that Union that we are 
chiefly indebted for whatever makes us 
most proud of oiu- country. That Union 
we reached only by the discipline of our 
virtues in the severe school of adversity. 
It had its origin in the necessities of dis- 
ordered finance, prostrate commerce, and 
ruined credit. Under its benign influ- 
ences, these gi'eat interests immediately 
awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth 
with newness of life. Eveiy year of its 
duration has teemed with fresh proofs of 
its utility and its blessings ; and although 
our territory has stretched out wider and 
wider, and our population spread farther 
and farther, they have not outrun its pro- 
tection or its benefits. It has been to us 
all a copious fountain of national, social, 
and personal happiness. 

I have not allowed myself. Sir, to look 
beyond the Union, to see what might lie 
hidden in the dark recess beliind. I 
have not coolly weighed tlie chances of 
preserving liberty when the bonds that 
unite us together shall be broken asun- 
der. I have not accustomed myself to 



hang over the precipice of disunion, 
to see whether, with my short siglit, I 
can fathom the depth of the abyss below ; 
nor could I regard him as a safe coun- 
sellor in the affairs of this government, 
whose thoughts should be mainly bent 
on considering, not how the Union may 
be best preserved, but how tolerable 
might be the condition of the people 
when it should be broken tip and de- 
stroyed. tWhile the Union, lasts, we 
have high, exciting, gratifying prospects 
sjiread out before us, for us and our 
children. Beyond that I seek not to 
penetrate the veil. God grant that, in 
my day, at least, that curtain may not 
rise! God grant that on my vision never 
may be opened what lies behind! When 
my eyes shall be turned to behold for 
the last time the sun in heaven, may I 
not see him shining on the broken and 
dishonored fragments of a once glorious 
Union; on States dissevered, discordant, 
belligerent; on a land rent with civil 
feuds, or drenched, it may be, in frater- 
nal blood! Let their last feeble and 
lingering glance rather behold the gor- 
geous ensign of the republic, now known 
and honored throughout the earth, still 
full high advanced, its arms and tro- 
phies streaming in their original lustre, 
not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a 
single star obscured, bearing for its 
motto, no stich miserable interrogatory 
as "What is all this worth'.''" nor 
those other words of delusion and folly, 
" Liberty first and Union afterwards " ; 
btit everywhere, spread all over in char- 
acters of living light, blazing on all its 
ample folds, as they float over the sea 
and over the land, and in every wind 
under the whole heavens, that other sen- 
timent, dear to every true American 
heart, — Lil)erty antl Union, now and 
for ever, one and inseparable! 

Mr. Iliiyne Laving rejoined to Mr. 
WfhsttT, especially on the constitutionul 
quc'stiiMi. Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclu- 
sion, said : — 

A few words, Mr. President, on this 
constitutional argument, which the hon- 
orable gentleman has labored to ncon- 
struct. 



I 



270 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



His argument consists of two propo- 
sitions and an inference. His proposi- 
tions are, — 

1. That tlie Constitution is a compact 
between the States. 

2. That a compact between two, with 
authority reserved to one to interpret its 
tt^rms, would be a surrender to tliat one 
of all power whatever. 

3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) 
the general government does not pos- 
sess the authority to construe its own 
powers. 

Now, Sir, who does not see, without 
the aid of exposition or detection, the 
utter confusion of ideas involved in this 
so elaborate and systematic argument. 

The Constitution, it is said, is a 
compact between States ; the States, 
then, and the States only, are parties 
to the compact. How comes the gen- 
eral government itself a party? Upon 
the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, 
the general government is the result of 
tlie compact, the creature of the com- 
pact, not one of the parties to it. Yet 
the argument, as the gentleman has now 
stated it, makes the government itself 
one of its own creators. It makes it a 
party to that compact to which it owes 
its own existence. 

For the purpose of erecting the Con- 
stitution on the basis of a compact, the 
gentleman considers the States as par- 
ties to that compact ; but as soon as his 
compact is made, then he chooses to 
consider the general government, which 
is the offspring of that compact, not its 
oii'spring, but one of its parties; and so, 
being a party, without the power of 
judging on the terms of compact. Pray, 
Sir, in what school is siich reasoning as 
this taught: 

If the whole of the gentleman's main 
proposition were conceded to him. — that 
is to say, if I admit, for the sake of the 
argument, that the Constitution is a 
com pact between States, — the inferences 
which he draws from that proposition 
are warranted by no just reasoning. If 
the Constitution be a compact between 
States, still that Constitution, or that 
compact, has established a government, 
with certain powers; and whether it be 



one of those powers, that it shall con- 
strue and intei-pret for itself the terms 
of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a 
question which can only be decided by 
looking to the compact, and inquiring 
what provisions it contains on this point. 
Without any inconsistency with natural 
reason, the government even thus cre- 
ated might be trusted with this power 
of construction. The extent of its pow- 
ers, therefore, must still be sought for 
in the instrument itself. 

If the old Confederation had con- 
tained a clause, declaring that resolu- 
tions of the Congress should be the 
supreme law of the land, any State law 
or constitution to the contrary notwith- 
standing, and that a committee of Con- 
gress, or any other body created by it, 
should possess judicial powers, extending 
to all cases arising under resolutions of 
Congress, then the power of ultimate de- 
cision would have been vested in Congress 
under the Confederation, although that 
Confederation was a compact between 
States; and for this plain reason, — that 
it would have been competent to the 
States, who alone were parties to the 
compact, to agree who should decide in 
cases of dispute arising on the construc- 
tion of the compact. 

For the same reason, Sir, if I were 
now to concede to the gentleman his 
principal proposition, namely, that the '! 
Constitution is a compact between 
States, the question would still be, 
What provision is made, in this com- 
pact, to settle points of disputed con- 
struction, or contested power, that shall 
come into controversy? And this ques- 
tion would still be answered, and con- 
clusively answered, by the Constitution 
itself. 

While the gentleman is contending 
against construction, he himself is set- 
ting up the most loose and dangerous con- 
struction. The Constitution declares, 
that the lav;s of Congress passed in pur- 
suance of the Constitution shall be the su- 
preme law of the land. No construction 
is necessary here. It declares, also, 
with equal plainness and precision, that 
the jtidicial power of the United States 
shall extend to every case arising under the 



THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 



271 



laws of Congress. This needs no con- 
struction. Here is a law, tlien, which 
is declared to be supreme; and liere is a 
power established, which is to interpret 
that law. Now, Sir, how has the gen- 
tleman met this? Supjiose the Consti- 
tution to be a compact, yet here are its 
terms ; and how does the gentleman get 
rid of them? He cannot argue the seal 
off the bond, nor the words out of the 
instrument. Here they are; what an- 
swer does he give to them? None in 
the world, Sir, except, that the effect of 
this would be to place the States in a 
condition of inferiority; and that it re- 
sults from the very nature of things, 
there being no superior, that the parties 
must be their own judges ! Thus closely 
and cogently does the honorable gentle- 
man reason on the words of the Consti- 
tution. The gentleman says, if there 
be such a power of final decision in the 
general government, he asks for the 
grant of that power. Well, Sir, I show 
him the grant. I turn him to the very 
words. I show him that the laws of 
Congress are made supreme; and that 
tlie judicial power extends, bj"^ express 
words, to the interpretation of these laws. 
Instead of answering this, he retreats 
into the general reflection, that it must 
result from the nature of things, that the 
States, being parties, must judge for 
themselves. 

I have admitted, that, if the Consti- 
tution were to be considered as the crea- 
ture of the State governments, it might 
be modified, interpreted, or construed 
according to their pleasure. But, even 
in that case, it would be necessary that 
tliey should agree. One alone could not 
interpret it conclusively; one alone could 
}iot construe it; one alone could not 
modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine 
is, that Carolina alone may construe and 
interpret that compact which equally 
binds all, and gives equal rights to all. 

So, then. Sir, even supposing the 
Constitution to be a compact between 
the States, the gentleman's doctrine, 
nevertheless, is not maintainable; be- 
cause, first, the general government is 
not a party to tliat compact, but a gov- 
ernment established by it, and vested by 



it with the powers of trying and decid- 
ing doubtful questions; and secondly, 
because, if the Constitution be regarded 
as a compact, not one State only, but 
all the States, are parties to that com- 
pact, and one can have no right to fix 
upon it her own peculiar construction. 

So much. Sir, for tlie argument, even 
if the premises of the gentleman were 
granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, 
tiie gentleman has failed to maintain 
his leading proposition. lie has not 
shown, it cannot be shown, that the 
Constitution is a compact between State 
governments. The Constitution itself, [ 
in its very front, refutes that idea; it 
declares that it is ordained and estab- , 
lished by the people of the United Slates. ( 
So far from saying that it is established 
by the governments of the several States, 
it does not even say that it is established , 
by the people of the several States; but! 
it pronounces that it is established by I 
the people of the United States, in the 
aggregate. The gentleman says, it must 
mean no more than the people of the 
several States. Doubtless, the people 
of the several States, taken collectively, 
constitute the people of the United 
States; but it is in this, their collective 
capacity, it is as all the people of the 
United States, that they establish the 
Constitution. So they declare; and 
words cannot be plainer than tiie words 
used. 

When the gentleman says the Consti- 
tution is a compact between the Slates, 
he uses language exactly applicable to 
the old Confederation. He speaks as if 
he were in Congress before 17S9. lie 
describes fully that old state of things 
then existing. The Confederation was, 
in strictness, a compact; the States, as 
States, were parties to it. We had no 
other general government. But that 
was found insullicieiit, and iuadiMjuato 
to the public exigencies. The people 
were not satisfied with it, and undertook 
to establish a better. They undertook 
t^ form a general government, wliioh 
should stand on a new basis; not a con- 
federacy, not a league, not a compact 
between States, but a Constitution ; a 
popular government, founded in popular 



I 



272 



THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 



election, directly responsible to the peo- 
ple themselves, and divided into branches 
with prescribed limits of power, and pre- 
scribed duties. They ordained such a 
government, they gave it the name of 
a Constitution, and therein they estab- 
lished a distribution of powers between 
this, their general government, and their 
several State governments. When they 
shall become dissatisfied with this dis- 
tribution, they can alter it. Their own 
power over their own instrument re- 
mains. But until they shall alter it, it 
must stand as their will, and is equally 
binding on the general government and 
on the States. 

The gentleman. Sir, finds analogy 
where I see none. He likens it to the 
case of a treaty, in which, there being 
no common superior, each party must 
interpret for itself, under its own obli- 
gation of good faith. But this is not a 
treaty, but a constitution of govern- 
ment, with powers to execute itself, and 
fulfil its duties. 

I admit. Sir, that this government is 
a government of checks and balances; 
that is, the House of Representatives is a 
check on the Senate, and the Senate is a 
check on the House, and the President 
a check on both. But I cannot compre- 



hend him, or, if I do, I totally differ 
from him, when he applies the notion 
of checks and balances to the inter- 
ference of different governments. He 
argues, that, if we transgress our con- 
stitutional limits, each State, as a State, 
has a right to check us. Does he admit 
the converse of the proposition, that we 
have a right to check the States ? The 
gentleman's doctrines would give us a 
strange jumble of authorities and pow- 
ers, instead of governments of sejaarate 
and defined powers. It is the part of 
wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to 
keep the general government and the 
State government each in its proper 
sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible 
every kind of interference. 

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman 
says, that the States will only interfere, 
by their power, to preserve the Constitu- 
tion. They will not destroy it, they 
will not impair it; they will only save, 
they will only preserve, they will only 
strengthen it ! Ah ! Sir, this is but the 
old story. All regulated governments, 
all free governments, have been broken 
by similar disinterested and well-dis- 
posed interference. It is the common 
pretence. But I take leave of the sub- 
ject. 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT BETWEEN 

SOVEREIGN STATES. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
16th of FEBRUARY, 1833. IN REPLY TO MR CALHOUN'S SPEECH ON THE 
BILL "FURTHER TO PROVIDE FOR THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IM- 
PORTS." 



I 



[On the 21st of January, 1833, Mr. Wil- 
kins, chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
of the Senate, introduced the bill further to 
provide for the collection of duties. On the 
22d day of the same month, Mr. Calhoun 
submitted the following resolutions : — 

" Resolved, That the people of the several 
States composing these United States are united 
as parties to a constitutional compact, to which 
the people of each State acceded as a separate 
soveieii^n community, each binding itself by its 
own particular ratilication ; and that the union, 
of which the said compact is the bond, is a union 
bitwttn the Stutes ratifying the same. 

" Resolved, That the people of the several 
States thus united by the constitutional com- 
pact, in forming that instrument, and in creat- 
ing a gei:eral government to carry into effect 
the objects for which they were formed, dele- 
gated to that government, for that purpose, cer- 
tain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, 
reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, 
the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by 
its own separate government; and that when- 
ever the general government assumes the exer- 
cise of powers not delegated b3- the compact, its 
acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and 
that the same goverinnent is not made the linal 
judge of the powers delegated to it, since that 
would make its discretion, and not the (.'onsti- 
tulion, the measure of its powers; but that, as 
in all other cases of compact among sovereign 
jiarties, without any common judge, each has 
an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the 
infraction as of the in<ide and measure of redress. 

^^ Resolved, That the assertions, that the peo- 
ple of these Uidted States, taken collectively as 
individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on 
the ininciple of (he ocial compact, and, as such, 
are now formed into one nation oi' ])eople, or 
that they have ever been so united in any one 
stage of their political existence; that tlie peo- 
ple of the seveial States composing the Union 
have not, as mendjers thereof, retained tlu-ir sov- 
ereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens 
has been transfcrreil to the general govern- 
ment; that they have parted with the right of 
punishing treason through their respective State 
governments; and that they have not the right 
of judging in the last resort as to the extent of 



the powers reserved, and of consequence of 
those delegated, — are not only without founda- 
tion in truth, but are contrary to the most cer- 
tain and plain historical facts, and the clearest 
deductions of reason; and that all exercise of 
power on the part of the general government, or 
any of its departments, claiming authority fron) 
such erroneous assumptions, nuist of necessity 
be unconstitutional. — must tend, directly and 
inevitably, to subvert the sovereigiUy of the 
States, to destroy the federal character of the 
Union, and to rear on its ruins a consoliilated 
government, without constitutional che(;k or lim- 
itation, and which must necessarily ternunate in 
the loss of liberty itself." 

On Saturday, tlie 16th of February, Mr. 
Calhoun spoke in opposition to the bill, and 
in support of these resolutions. He was 
followed by Mr. Webster in this speech.] 

Mr. President, — The gentleman 
from South Carolina has 'admoni.shed 
us to be mindful of the opinions of 
those who shall come after us. We 
must take our chance, Sir, as to the 
liglit in which posterity will regard us. 
1 do not decline its judgment, nor with- 
hold myself from its scrutiny. Feeling 
that I am performing my public duty 
with singleness of iieart and to the best 
of my ability, I fearlessly trust my.self 
to the country, now and hereafter, and 
leave both my motives and my character 
to its decision. 

The gentleman has terminated his 
speech in a tone of threat and deliance 
towards this bill, even should it become 
a law of the land, altogt-ther umisuid i^i 
the halls of Congress. 15ut I shall not 
suffer myself to be excited into warmth 
by his denunciation of the measure which 
I support. Among the feelings which 



18 



274 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



at this moment fill my breast, not the 
least is that of regret at the position in 
which the gentleman has placed himself. 
Sir, he does himself no justice. The 
cause which he has espoused finds no 
basis in the Constitution, no succor from 
public sjTnpathy, no cheering from a 
patriotic community. He has no foot- 
hold on which to stand while he might 
display the powei's of his acknowledged 
talents. Every thing beneath his feet 
is hollow and treacherous. He is like 
a strong man struggling in a morass: 
every effort to extricate himself only 
sinks him deeper and deeper. And I 
fear the resemblance may be carried 
still farther; I fear that no friend can 
safely come to his relief, that no one can 
approach near enough to hold out a help- 
ing hand, without danger of going down 
himself, also, into the bottomless depths 
of this Serbonian bog. 

The honorable gentleman has de- 
clared, that on the decision of the ques- 
tion now in debate may depend the 
cause of liberty itself. I am of the same 
opinion; but then. Sir, the liberty which 
I think is staked on the contest is not 
political liberty, in any general and un- 
defined character, but our own well- 
understood and long-enjoyed American 
liberty. 

Sir, I love Liberty no less ardently 
than the gentleman himself, in whatever 
form she may have appeared in the 
progress of human history. As exhib- 
ited in the master states of antiquity, 
as breaking out again from amidst the 
darkness of the Middle Ages, and beam- 
ing on the formation of new communi- 
ties in modern Europe, she has, always 
and everywhere, charms for me. Yet, 
Sir, it is our own liberty, guarded by 
constitutions and secured by union, it is 
that liberty which is our paternal inher- 
itance, it is our established, dear-bought, 
peculiar American liberty, to which I 
am chiefly devoted, and the cause of 
which I now mean, to the utmost of my 
power, to maintain and defend. 

Mr. President, if I considered the con- 
stitutional question now before us as 
doubtful as it is important, and if I sup- 
posed that its decision, either in the 



Senate or by the country, was likely to 
be in any degree influenced by the man- 
ner in which I might now discuss it, this 
would be to me a moment of deep solici- 
tude. Such a moment has once existed. 
There has been a time, when, rising in 
this place, on the same question, I felt, 
I must confess, that something for good 
or evil to the Constitution of the coun- 
try might depend on an effort of mine. 
But circumstances are changed. Since 
that day. Sir, the public opinion has be- 
come awakened to this great question; 
it has grasped it ; it has reasoned upon it, 
as becomes an intelligent and patriotic 
community, and has settled it, or now 
seems in the progress of settling it, by 
an authority which none can disobey, 
the authority of the people themselves. 

I shall not, Mr. President, follow the 
gentleman, step by step, through the 
course of his speech. Much of what he 
has said he has deemed necessary to the 
just explanation and defence of his own 
political character and conduct. On this 
I shall offer no comment. Much, too, 
has consisted of philosoi^hical remark 
upon the general nature of political lib- 
erty, and the history of free institutions ; 
and upon other topics, so general in 
their nature as to possess, in my opinion, 
only a remote bearing on the immediate 
subject of this debate. 

But the gentleman's speech made 
some days ago, upon introducing his 
resolutions, those resolutions them- 
selves, and parts of the speech now just 
concluded, may, I presume, be justly re- 
garded as containing the whole South 
Carolina doctrine. That doctrine it is 
my purpose now to examine, and to 
compare it with the Constitution of tlie 
United States. I shall not consent. Sir, 
to make any new constitution, or to 
establish another form of government. 
I will not undertake to say what a con- 
stitution for these United States ought 
to be. That question the people have 
decided for themselves; and I shall take 
tlie instrument as they have established 
it, and shall endeavor to maintain it, in 
its plain sense and meaning, against 
opinions and notions which, in my judg- 
ment, threaten its subversion. 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



275 



The resolutions introduced by the gen- 
tleman were apparently drawn up with 
care, and brought forward upon deliber- 
ation. I .'<liall not be in danger, there- 
fore, of misunderstanding him. or those 
who agree with him, if 1 proceed at 
once to these resolutions, and consider 
tliem as an authentic statement of those 
opinions upon the great constitutional 
question by which the recent proceed- 
ings in South Carolina are attempted to 
be justified. 

These resolutions are three in num- 
ber. 

The third seems intended to enumer- 
ate, and to deny, the several opinions 
expressed in the President's proclama- 
tion, respecting the nature and powers 
of this government. Of this third reso- 
lution, I purpose, at present, to take no 
particular notice. 

The first two resolutions of the honor- 
able member affirm these propositions, 
viz. : — 

1: That the political system under 
which we live, and under which Con- 
gress is now assembled, is a compact., to 
wliich the people of the several States, 
as separate and sovereign communities, 
are the parties. 

2. That these sovereign parties have 
a right to judge, each for itself, of any 
alleged violation of the Constitution by 
Congress; and, in case of such viola- 
tion, to choose, each for itself, its own 
mode and measure of redress. 

It is true. Sir, that the honorable 
member calls this a ''constitutional" 
compact; but still he affirms it to be 
a compact between sovereign States. 
Wliat prcci-se meaning, then, does he 
attach to the term constitutional ? When 
applied to compacts between sovereign 
States, the term constitutional affixes to 
the word compact no definite idea. Were 
we to hear of a constitutional league or 
treaty between England and France, or 
a constitutional convention between Aus- 
tria and Russia, we should not under- 
stand what could be intended by such a 
league, such a treaty, or such a conven- 
tion. In these coiniections, the word is 
void of all meaning; and yet. Sir, it is 
easy, quite easy, to see why the honor- 



able gentleman has used it in these reso- 
lutions, lie cannot open the book, and 
look upon our written frame of govern- 
ment, without seeing that it is called a 
constitution. This nuiy well be appalling 
to him. It threatens his whole doctrine 
of compact, and its darling derivatives, 
nullification and secession, with instant 
confutation. Because, if he admits our 
instrument of government to be a con- 
stitution, then, for that very reason, it is 
not a compact between sovereigns; a 
constitution of government and a com- 
pact between sovereign powers being 
things essentially unlike in their very 
natures, and incapable of ever being the 
same. Yet the word c(>nslilulio)i is on 
the very front of the instrument. He 
cannot overlook it. He seeks, therefore, 
to compromise the matter, and to sink 
all the substantial sense of the word, 
while he retains a resemblance of its 
sound. He introduces a new word of 
his own, viz. compact, as importing the 
principal idea, and designed to play the 
principal part, and degrades constitution 
into an insignificant, idle epithet, at- 
tached to compact. The whole then 
stands as a ^^constitutional compact '\' 
And in this way he hopes to pass off a 
plausible gloss, as satisfying the words 
of the instrument. But he will find 
himself disappointed. Sir, I must say 
to the honorable gentleman, that, in our 
American political grammar, Constitu- 
Tiox is a noun substantive; it imports a 
distinct and clear idea of itself; and it 
is not to lose its importance ami dignity, 
it is not to be turned into a poor, am- 
biguous, senseless, unmeaning ailjective, 
for the purpose of accommodating any 
new set of political notions. Sir, we 
reject his new rules of syntax altogether. 
We will not give up our furnis of jwiliti- 
cal speech Ui the granunarians of tiie 
school of nullification. By tlie Consti- 
tution, we mean, not a "constitutional 
compact," but, simply and directly, the 
Constitution, the fundamental law; and 
if there be one word in the language 
which the people of the United .States 
understand, this is that word. We know 
no more of a constitutional compact be- 
tween sovereign powers, than we know 



276 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



of a conslihttional indenture of copart- 
nership, a constitutional deed of convey- 
ance, or a constitutional bill of exchange. 
But we know what the Constitution is; 
we know what the plainly written funda- 
mental law is ; we know what the bond 
of our Union and the security of our 
liberties is ; and we mean to maintain 
and to defend it, in its plain sense and 
unsophisticated meaning. 

The sense of the gentleman's proposi- 
tion, therefore, is not at all affected, one 
way or the other, by the use of this 
word. That proposition still is, that 
our system of government is but a com- 
pact between the people of separate and 
sovereign States. 

Was it Mirabeau, Mr. President, or 
some other master of the human pas- 
sions, who has told us that words are 
things? They are indeed things, and 
things of mighty influence, not only in 
addresses to the passions and high- 
wrought feelings of mankind, but in 
the discussion of legal and political 
questions also; because a just conclu- 
sion is often avoided, or a false one 
reached, by the adroit substitution of 
one phrase, or one word, for another. 
Of this we have, I think, another ex- 
ample in the resolutions before us. 

The first resolution declares that the 
people of the several States ' ' acceded ' ' 
to the Constitution, or to the constitu- 
tional compact, as it is called. This 
word " accede," not found either in the 
Constitution itself, or in the ratification 
of it by any one of the States, has been 
chosen for use here, doubtless, not with- 
out a well-considered purpose. 

The natural converse of accession is 
secession ; and, therefore, when it is 
stated that the people of the States ac- 
ceded to the Union, it may be more 
plausibly argued that they may secede 
from it. If, in adopting the Constitu- 
tion, nothing was done but acceding to 
a compact, nothing would seem neces- 
sary, in order to break it up, but to 
secede from the same compact. But 
the term is wholly out of place. Ac- 
cession, as a word applied to political 
associations, implies coming into a 
league, treaty, or confederacy, by one 



hitherto a stranger to it; and secession 
implies departing from such league or 
confederacy. The people of the United 
States have used no sixch form of ex- 
pression in establishing the present gov- 
ernment. They do not say that they 
accede to a league, but they declare that 
they ordain and establish a Constitution. 
Such are the very words of the instru- 
ment itself; and in all the States, with- 
out an exception, the language used by 
their conventions was, that they ^'■rati- 
fied the Constitution^'' ; some of them 
employing the additional words " as- 
sented to" and " adopted," but all of 
them "ratifying." 

There is more importance than may, 
at first sight, appear, in the introduc- 
tion of this new word, by the honorable 
mover of these resolutions. Its adop- 
tion and use are indispensable to main- 
tain those pi-emises from which his main 
conclusion is to be afterwards drawn. 
But before showing that, allow me to 
remark, that this phraseology tends to 
keep out of sight the just view of a pre- 
vious political history, as well as to sug- 
gest wrong ideas as to what was actually 
done when the present Constitution was 
agreed to. In 1789, and before this Con- 
stitution was adopted, the United States 
had already been in a union, more or 
less close, for fifteen years. At least as 
far back as the meeting of the first 
Congress, in 1774, they had been in 
some measure, and for some national 
purposes, united together. Before the 
Confederation of 1781, they had de- 
clared independence jointly, and had 
carried on the war jointly, both by sea 
and land; and this not as separate States, 
but as one people. When, therefore, 
they formed that Confederation, and 
adopted its articles as articles of per- 
petual union, they did not come together 
for the first time; and therefore they 
did not speak of the States as acceding 
to the Confederation, although it was a 
league, and nothing but a league, and 
rested on nothing but plighted faith for 
its performance. Yet, even then, the 
States were not strangers to each other; 
there was a bond of union already sub- 
sisting between them ; they were associ- 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



277 



ated, united States ; and the object of the 
Confederation was to make a stronger 
and better bond of union. Their repre- 
sentatives deliberated together on these 
proposed Articles of Confederation, and, 
being authorized by their respective 
States, finally " ratijied and conjirmed " 
them. Inasmuch as they were already 
in union, they did not speak of acceding 
to the new Articles of Confederation, 
but of ratifijing and coi^Jirming them; 
and this language was not used inad- 
vertently, because, in the s-ame instru- 
ment, accession is used in its proper 
sense, when applied to Canada, which 
was altogether a stranger to the existing 
iinion. "Canada," says the eleventh 
article, " acceding to this Confedera- 
tion, and joining in the measures of 
the United States, shall be admitted 
into the Union." 

Having thus used the terms ratify and 
confirm, even in regard to the old Con- 
federation, it would have been strange 
indeed, if the people of the United 
States, after its formation, and when 
they came to establish the present Con- 
stitution, had spoken of the States, or 
the people of the States, as acceding 
to this Constitution. Such language 
would have been ill-suited to the oc- 
casion. It would have implied an ex- 
isting separation or disunion among 
the States, such as never has existed 
since 1774. No such language, there- 
fore, was used. The language actually 
employed is, adopt, ratifg, ordain, es- 
tablish. 

Therefore, Sir, since any State, before 
she can prove her right to dissolve the 
Union, nmst show her authority to undo 
what has been done, no State is at lib- 
erty to secede, on the ground that she 
and other States have done nothing but 
accede. She must show that she has a 
right to reverse what has been ordained, 
to unsettle and overthrow what has been 
established, to reject what the people 
have adopted, and to break up wliat they 
have ratified; because these are the 
terms which express the transactions 
which have actually taken place. In 
other words, she must show her right to 
make a revolution. 



If, Mr. President, in drawing these 
resolutions, tiie honorable member liad 
confined him.self to the use of constitu- 
tional language, there would have been 
a wide and awful hiatus between hia 
premises and his conclusion. Leaving 
out the two words compact and accession, 
which are not constitutional modes of 
expression, and stating the matter pre- 
cisely as the truth is, his first resolution 
would have affirmed that the people of 
the several Slates ratified this Constitution, 
or form of government. These are the 
very words of South Carolina herself, in 
her act of ratification. Let, then, his 
first resolution tell the exact truth ; let 
it state the fact precisely as it exists; 
let it say that the people of the several 
States ratified a constitution, or form of 
government, and then, Sir, what will 
become of his inference in his second 
resolution, which is in these words, viz. 
" that, as in all other cases of compact 
among sovereign parties, each has an 
equal right to judge for itself, as well of 
the infraction as of the mode and meas- 
ure of redress"? It is obvious, is it 
not. Sir? that this conclusion requires 
for its support quite other premises ; it 
requires premises which speak of acces- 
sion and of compact between sovereign 
powers; and, without such premises, it 
is altogether unmeaning. 

]\Ir. President, if the honorable mem- 
ber will truly state what the people did 
in forming this Constitution, and then 
state what they must do if they would 
now undo what they then did, he will 
unavoidably state a case of revolution. 
Let us see if it be not so. He nuist 
state, in the first place, that the peoi)le 
of the several States adopted and rati- 
fied this Constitution, or form of gov- 
ernment; and, in the next i>lace, he 
must state that they have a rigiit to 
undo this; that is to say, that tliey have 
a right to discard the form of govern- 
ment which they have adopted, and to 
break up the Constitution which tiiey 
have ratified. Now, Sir, this is neither 
more nor less than saying that tiiey have 
a right to make a revolution. To reject 
an established goveriunent, to break up 
a political constitution, is revolution. 






278 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



I deny that any man can state accu- 
rately what was done by the people, in 
establishing the present Constitution, 
and then state accurately what the 
people, or any part of them, must now 
do to get rid of its obligations, without 
stating an undeniable case of the over- 
throw of government. I admit, of 
course, that the people may, if they 
choose, overthrow the government. But, 
then, that is revolution. The doctrine 
now contended for is, that, by nullifica- 
tion, or secession, the obligations and 
authority of the government may be set 
aside or rejected, without revolution. 
But that is what I deny; and what I say 
is, that no man can state the case with 
historical accuracy, and in constitutional 
language, without showing that the 
honorable gentleman's right, as asserted 
in his conclusion, is a revolutionary 
right merely; that it does not and can- 
not exist under the Constitution, or 
agreeably to the Constitution, but can 
come into existence only when the Con- 
stitution is overthrown. This is the 
reason, Sir, which makes it necessary to 
abandon the use of constitutional lan- 
guage for a new vocabulary, and to sub- 
stitute, in the place of plain historical 
facts, a series of assumptions. This is 
the reason why it is necessary to give 
new names to things, to speak of the 
Constitution, not as a constitution, but 
as a compact, and of the ratifications by 
the people, not as ratifications, but as 
acts of accession. 

Sir, I intend to hold the gentleman to 
tiie written record. In the discussion 
of a constitutional question, I intend to 
impose upon him the restraints of con- 
stitutional language. The people have 
ordained a Constitution; can they reject 
it without i-evolution? They have es- 
tablished a form of government; can 
th(>y overthrow it without revolution ? 
These are the true questions. 

Allow me now, Mr. President, to in- 
quire further into the extent of the 
propositions contained in the resolutions, 
and their necessary consequences. 

Where sovereign communities are par- 
ties, there is no essential difference 
between a compact, a confederation, and 



a league. They all equally rest on the 
plighted faith of the sovereign party. 
A league, or confederacy, is but a sub- 
sisting or continuing treaty. 

The gentleman's resolutions, then, 
affirm, in effect, that these twenty-four 
United States are held together only by 
a subsisting treaty, resting for its fulfil- 
ment and continuance on no inherent 
power of its own, but on the plighted 
faith of each State ; or, in other words, 
that our Union is but a league; and, as 
a consequence from this proposition, 
they further affirm that, as sovereigns 
are subject to no superior power, the 
States must judge, each for itself, of 
any alleged violation of the league; and 
if such violation be supposed to have 
occurred, each may adopt any mode or 
measure of redress which it shall think 
proper. 

Other consequences naturally follow, 
too, from the main proposition. If a 
league between sovereign powers have 
no limitation as to the time of its dura- 
tion, and contain nothing making it 
perpetual, it subsists only during the 
good pleasure of the parties, although 
no violation be complained of. If, in 
the opinion of either party, it be vio- 
lated, such party may say that he will 
no longer fulfil its obligations on his 
part, but will consider the whole league 
or compact at an end, although it might 
be one of its stipulations that it should 
be perpetual. Upon this principle, the 
Congress of the United States, in 1798, 
declared null and void the treaty of alli- 
ance between the United States and 
France, though it professed to be a per- 
petual alliance. 

If the violation of the league be ac- 
companied with serious injuries, the 
suffering party, being sole judge of his 
own mode and measure of redress, has 
a right to indemnify himself by repi'isals 
on the offending members of the league; 
and reprisals, if the circumstances of the 
case require it, may be followed by direct, 
avowed, and public war. 

The necessary imjiort of the resolu- 
tion, therefore, is, that the United 
States are connected only by a league ; 
that it is in the good pleasure of every 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



279 



State to decide how long she ■will choose 
to remain a member of this league ; that 
any State may determine the extent of 
her own obligations under it, and accept 
or reject what shall be decided by the 
whole; that she may also determine 
whether her rights have been violated, 
what is the extent of the injury done 
her, and what mode and measure of 
redress her wrongs may make it fit and 
expedient for her to adopt. The result 
of the w'hole is, that any State may 
secede at pleasure ; that any State may 
resist a law which she herself may 
choose to say exceeds the power of Con- 
gress; and that, as a sovereign power, 
she may redress her own grievances, by 
her own arm, at her own discretion. 
She may make reprisals ; she may cruise 
against the property of other members 
of the league; she may authorize cap- 
tures, and make open w^ar. 

If, Sir, this be our political condition, 
it is time the people of the United States 
understood it. Let us look for a mo- 
ment to the practical consequences of 
these opinions. One State, holding an 
embargo law unconstitutional, may de- 
clare her opinion, and withdraw from 
the Union. She secedes. Another, 
forming and expressing the same judg- 
ment on a law laying duties on imports, 
may withdraw also. She secedes. And 
as, in her opinion, money has been taken 
out of the pockets of her citizens ille- 
gally, under pretence of this law, and as 
she has power to redress their wrongs, 
she may demand satisfaction; and, if 
refused, she may take it with a strong 
hand. The gentleman has himself pro- 
nounced the collection of duties, under 
existing laws, to be nothing but robbery. 
Bobbers, of course, may be rightfully 
dispossessed of the fruits of their flagi- 
tious crimes; and therefore, reprisals, 
impositions on tlie commerce of other 
States, foreign alliances against them, 
or open war, are all modes of redress 
justly open to the discretion and choice 
of South Carolina; for she is to judge of 
her own rights, and to seek satisfaction 
for her own wrongs, in her own way. 

But, Sir, a third State is of opinion, 
not only that these laws of imposts are 



constitutional, but that it is the absolute 
duty of Congress to pass and io main- 
tain svich laws; ami tluit, by oniilting 
to pass and maintain them, its con- 
stitutional obligations would be grossly 
disregarded. She herself rt-lintiuisiied 
the power of protection, slie might 
allege, and allege truly, and gave it 
up to Congress, on the faith that Con- 
gress would exercise it. If Congress 
now refuse to exercise it, Congress does, 
as she may insist, break the condition of 
the grant, and thus manifestly violate 
the Constitution ; and for this violation 
of the Constitution, she may threaten 
to secede also. Virginia may secede, 
and hold the fortresses in the Chesa- 
peake. The Western States may secede, 
and take to their own use the public 
lands. Louisiana may secede, if she 
choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold 
the mouth of the Mis.sissippi. If one 
State may secede, ten may do .so, twenty 
may do so, twenty-three may do so. 
Sir, as these secessions go on, one after 
another, what is to constitute the Unit- 
ed States ? Whose will be the army ? 
Whose the navy? Who will pay the 
debts? Who fulfil the public treaties? 
Who perform the constitutional guaran- 
ties? Who govern this District and the 
Territories? Who retain the public 
property? 

Mr. President, eveiy man must see 
that these are all questions which can 
arise only afler a revolution. They pre- 
suppose the breaking up of the govern- 
ment. While the Constitution lasts, 
they are repressed ; they spring up to an- 
noy and startle us only from its grave. 

The Constitution doi-s not provide for 
events which must be preceded by its 
own destruction. Secp:ssiok, therefore, 
since it must bring these consequences 

with it, is REVOLUTIONARY, and NUl-I.I- 

KiCATiON is equally revolution a it v. 
AVhat is revolution? Why, Sir, tliat is 
revolution which overturns, or controls, 
or successfully resists, the existing pub- 
lic authority; that which arrests the ex- 
erci.se of the supreme power; that which 
introduces a new paramount authority 
into the rule of tfie State. Now, Sir. 
this is the preci:-e object of nullilication. 



280 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



It attempts to supersede the supreme 
legislative authority. It arrests the arm 
of the executive magistrate. It inter- 
rupts the exercise of the accustomed 
judicial power. Under the name of an 
ordinance, it declares null and void, 
within the State, all the revenue laws of 
the United States. Is not this revolu- 
tionary? Sir, so soon as this ordinance 
shall be carried into effect, a revolution 
will have commenced in South Carolina. 
She will have tlirown off the authority 
to which her citizens have heretofore 
been subject. She will have declared 
her own opinions and her own will to be 
above the laws and above the power of 
those who are intrusted with their ad- 
ministration. If she makes good these 
declarations, she is revolutionized. As 
to her, it is as distinctly a change of the 
supreme power as the American Revo- 
lution of 1776. That revolution did not 
subvert government in all its forms. It 
did not subvert local laws and muni- 
cipal administrations. It only threw off 
the dominion of a power claiming to be 
superior, and to have a right, in many 
important respects, to exercise legisla- 
tive authority. Thinking this authority 
to have been usurped or abused, the 
American Colonies, now the United 
States, bade it defiance, and freed them- 
selves from it by means of a revolution. 
But that revolution left them with their 
own nniuicipal laws still, and the forms 
of local government. If Carolina now 
shall effectually resist the laws of Con- 
gress; if she shall be her own judge, 
take her remedy into her own hands, 
obey the laws of the Union when she 
pleases and disobey them when she 
pleases, she will relieve herself from a 
paramount power as distinctly as the 
American Colonies did the same thing 
1770. In other words, she will 



in 



achieve, as to herself, a revolution, 

But, Sir, while practical nullification 
in South Carolina would be, as to her- 
self, actual and distinct revolution, its 
necessary tendency must also be to 
spread revolution, and to break up the 
Constitution, as to all the other States. 
It strikes a deadly blow at the vital 
principle of the whole Union. To allow 



State resistance to the laws of Congress 
to be rightful and proper, to admit nulli- 
fication in some States, and yet not ex- 
pect to see a dismemberment of the 
entire government, appears to me the 
wildest illusion, and the most extrava- 
gant folly. The gentleman seems not 
conscious of the direction or the rapid- 
ity of his own course. The current 
of his opinions sweeps him along, he 
knows not whither. To begin with 
nullification, "with the avowed intent, 
nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, 
dismemberment, and general revolution, 
is as if one were to take the plunge of 
Niagara, and cry out that he would stop 
half-way down. In the one case, as in 
the other, the rash adventurer must go 
to the bottom of the dark abyss below, 
were it not that that abyss has no dis- 
covered bottom. 

Nullification, if successful, arrests the 
power of the law, absolves citizens from 
their duty, subverts the foundation both 
of protection and obedience, dispenses 
with oaths and obligations of allegiance, 
and elevates another authority to su- 
preme command. Is not this revolu- 
tion? And it raises to supreme com- 
mand four-and-twenty distinct powers, 
each professing to be under a general 
government, and yet each setting its 
laws at defiance at pleasure. Is not this 
anarchy, as well as revolution? Sir, 
the Constitution of the United States 
was received as a whole, and for the 
whole country. If it cannot stand alto- 
gether, it cannot stand in parts; and if 
the laws cannot be executed everywhere, 
they cannot long be executed anywhere. 
The gentleman very well knows that all 
duties and imposts must be uniform 
throughout the country. He knows that 
we cannot have one rule or one law for 
South Carolina, and another for other 
States. He must see, therefore, and 
does see, and every man sees, that the 
only alternative is a repeal of the laws 
throughout the whole Union, or their 
execution in Carolina as well as else- 
where. And this repeal is demanded 
because a single State interposes her 
veto, and threatens resistance! The 
result of the gentleman's opinion, or 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



281 



rather the very text of his doctrine, is, 
that no act of Congress can bind all the 
States, the constitutionality of wliich is 
not admitted by aU; or, in other words, 
that no single State is bound, against 
its own dissent, by a law of imposts. 
This is precisely the evil experienced 
under the old Confedei'ation, and for 
remedy of which this Constitution was 
adopted. The leading object in es- 
tablishing this government, an object 
forced on the country by the condition 
of the times and the absolute necessity 
of the law, was to give to Congress 
power to lay and collect imposts with- 
out the consent of particular Stales. The 
Revolutionary debt remained unpaid; 
the national treasury was bankrupt; the 
country was destitute of credit; Con- 
gress issued its requisitions on the 
States, and the States neglected them; 
there was no power of coercion but war. 
Congress could not lay imposts, or other 
taxes, by its own authority; the whole 
general government, therefore, was lit- 
tle more than a name. The Articles of 
Confederation, as to purposes of revenue 
and finance, wei-e nearly a dead letter. 
The country sought to escape from this 
condition, at once feeble and disgrace- 
ful, by constituting a government which 
should have power, of itself, to lay 
duties and taxes, and to pay the public 
debt, and provide for the general wel- 
fare ; and to lay these duties and taxes 
in all the States, without asking the 
consent of the State governments. This 
was the very power on which the new 
Constitution was to depend for all its 
ability to do good; and without it, it can 
be no government, now or at any time. 
Yet, Sir, it is precisely against this 
power, so absolutely indispensable to 
the vei-y being of the government, that 
South Carolina directs her ordinance. 
She attacks the government in its au- 
thority to raise revenue, the verj' main- 
spring of the whole system ; and if she 
succeed, every movement of that sys- 
tem must inevitably cease. It is of no 
avail that she declares that she does not 
resist the law as a revenue law, but as 
a law for protecting manufactures. It 
is a revenue law ; it is the very law by 



force of which the revenue is collected; 
if it be arrested in any State, the reve- 
nue ceases in that State; it is, in a 
word, tlie sole reliance of the govern- 
ment for the means of maintaining it- 
s;elf and performing its duties. 

Mr. President, the alleged right of a 
State to decide constitutional questions 
for herself necessarily leads to force, be- 
cause other States must have the same 
right, and because different States will 
decide differently; and when these ques- 
tions arise between States, if there be no 
superior power, they can be decided only 
by the law of force. On entering into the 
Union, the people of each State gave up 
a part of their own power to make laws 
for themselves, in consideration, that, 
as to common objects, they should have 
a part in making laws for other States. 
In other words, the people of all the 
States agreed to create a common gov- 
ernment, to be conducted by common 
counsels. Pennsylvania, for example, 
yielded the right of laying imposts in 
her own ports, in consideration that the 
new government, in which she was to 
have a share, should possess tlie power 
of laying imposts on all the States. If 
South Carolina now refuses to submit 
to this power, she breaks the condition 
on which other States entered into the 
Union. She partakes of the common 
counsels, and therein assists to bind 
others, while she refuses to be bound 
herself. It makes no difference in tlie 
case, whether she does all this without 
reason or pretext, or whether she seta 
up as a reason, that, in her judgment, 
the acts complained of are unconstitu- 
tional. In the judgment of other States, 
they are not so. It is nothing to them 
that she offers some reason or some 
apology for her conduct, if it be one 
which they do not admit. It is not to be 
expected that any State will violate her 
duty without some plausible pretext. 
That would be too rash a defiance of 
the opinion of mankind. But if it be 
a pretext which lies in lu-r own breast, 
if it be no more thaij an opiiiiou which 
she says she has formed, how can other 
States be satisfied with this? How can 
they allow her to be judge of her owa 



k 



282 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



obligations? Or, if she may judge of 
her obligations, may they not judge of 
their rights also? May not the twenty- 
three entertain an opinion as well as the 
twenty-fourth? And if it be their right, 
in their own opinion, as expressed in the 
common council, to enforce the law 
against her, how is she to say that her 
right and her opinion are to be every 
thing, and their right and their opinion 
nothing? 

j\Ir. President, if we are to receive the 
Constitution as the text, and then to lay 
down in its margin the contradictory 
commentaries which have been, and 
which maybe, made by different States, 
the whole page would be a polyglot in- 
deed. It would speak with as many 
tongues as the builders of Babel, and in 
dialects as much confused, and mutu- 
ally as unintelligible. The very instance 
now before us presents a practical illus- 
tration. The law of the last session is 
declared unconstitutional in South Car- 
olina, and obedience to it is refused. 
In other States, it is admitted to be 
strictly constitutional. You walk over 
the limit of its authority, therefore, 
■when you pass a State line. On one side 
it is law, on the other side a nullity; 
and yet it is passed by a common gov- 
ernment, having the same authority in 
all the States. 

Such, Sir, are the inevitable results of 
this doctrine. Beginning with the origi- 
nal error, that the Constitution of the 
United States is nothing but a compact 
between sovereign States; asserting, in 
the next step, that each State has a right 
to be its own sole judge of the extent of 
its own obligations, and consequently 
of the constitutionality of laws of Con- 
gress; and, in the next, that it may 
oi')pose whatever it sees fit to declare un- 
constitutional, and that it decides for 
itself on the mode and measure of re- 
dress, — the argument arrives at once at 
the conclusion, that what a State dis- 
sents from, it may nullify; what it op- 
poses, it may oppose by force; what it 
decides for itself, it may execute by its 
own power; and that, in short, it is 
itself supreme over the legislation of 
Congress, and supreme over the decis- 



ions of the national judicature ; supreme 
over the constitution of the covmti-y, svi- 
preme over the supreme law of the land. 
However it seeks to protect itself against 
these plain inferences, by saying that 
an unconstitutional law is no law, and 
that it only opposes such laws as are un- 
constitutional, yet this does not in the 
slightest degree vary the result ; since it 
insists on deciding this question for it- 
self; and, in opposition to reason and 
argument, in opposition to practice and 
experience, in opposition to the judg- 
ment of others, having an equal right to 
judge, it says, only, " Such is my opin- 
ion, and my opinion shall be my law, 
and I will support it by my own strong 
hand. I denounce the law; I declare 
it unconstitutional; that is enough; it 
shall not be executed. Men in arms are 
ready to resist its execution. An at- 
tempt to enforce it shall cover the land 
with blood. Elsewhere it may be bind- 
ing; but here it is trampled underfoot." 

This, Sir, is practical nullification. 

And now. Sir, against all these theo- 
ries and opinions, I maintain, — - 

1. That the Constitution of the United 
States is not a league, confederacy, or 
compact between the people of the sev- 
eral States in their sovereign capacities ; 
but a government proper, founded on 
the adoption of the people, and creating 
direct relatiour between itself and indi- 
viduals. 

2. That no State authority has power 
to dissolve these relations ; that nothing 
can dissolve them but revolution; and 
that, consequently, there can be no such 
thing as secession without revolution. 

3. That there is a supreme law, con- 
sisting of the Constitution of the United 
States, and acts of Congress passed in 
pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, 
in cases not capable of assuming the 
character of a suit in law or equity, 
Congress must judge of, and finally in- 
terpret, this supreme law so often as it 
has occasion to pass acts of legislation ; 
and in cases capable of assuming, and 
actually assuming, the character of a 
suit, the Supreme Court of the United 
States is the final interpreter. 

4. That an attempt by a State to ab- 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



283 



rogate, annul, or nullify an act of Con- 
gress, or to arrest its operation within 
her limits, on the ground that, in her 
opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is 
a direct usurpation on the just powers 
of the general government, and on the 
equal rights of other States ; a plain vi- 
olation of the Constitution, and a pro- 
ceeding essentially revolutionary in its 
character and tendency. 

Whether the Constitution be a com- 
pact between States in their sovereign 
capacities, is a question which must be 
mainly argued from what is contained 
in the instrument itself. We all agree 
that it is an instrument whicli has been 
in some way clothed witli power. We 
all admit that it speaks with authority. 
The first question then is. What does it 
say of itself? AVhat does it purport to 
be? Does it style itself a league, con- 
federacy, or compact between sovereign 
States? It is to be remembered. Sir, 
that the Constitution began to speak 
only after its adoption. Until it was 
ratified by nine States, it was but a pro- 
posal, the mere draught of an instru- 
ment. It was like a deed drawn, but 
not executed. The Convention had 
framed it; sent it to Congress, then sit- 
ting under the Confederation ; Congress 
had transmitted it to the State legisla- 
tures ; and by these last it was laid be- 
fore conventions of the people in the 
several States. All this while it was 
inoperative paper. It had received no 
stamp of authority, no sanction; it 
spoke no language. But when ratified 
by the people in their respective conven- 
tions, then it had a voice, and spoke au- 
thentically. Every word in it had then 
received the sanction of the popular 
will, and was to be received as the ex- 
pression of that will. What the Con- 
stitution says of itself, therefore, is as 
conclusive as what it says on any other 
point. Does it call itself a " compact "? 
Certainly not. It uses the word compact 
but once, and that is when it declares 
that the States shall enter into no com- 
pact. Does it call itself a " league," a 
" confederacy," a " subsisting treaty 
between the States"? Certainly not. 
There is not a particle of such language 



in all its pages. But it declares itself a 
Constitution. What is a constitution ? 
Certainly not a league, compact, or con- 
federacy, but a funilumental law. 'J'hat 
fundamental regulation which deter- 
mines the manner in which the public 
authority is to be executed, is what 
forms the con.ttitution of a state. Those 
primary rules which concern the body 
itself, and the very being of the politi- 
cal society, the form of government, and 
the manner in which power is to be ex- 
ercised, — all, in a word, which form 
together the constitution of a state, — 
these are the fundamental laws. This, 
Sir, is the language of the public writ- 
ers. But do we need to be informed, 
in this country, what a constitution is? 
Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, defi- 
nite, and well settled? We are at no 
loss to understand what is meant by the 
constitution of one of the States; and 
the Constitution of the United States 
speaks of itself as being an instrument 
of the same nature. It says this Con- 
stitution shall be the law of the land, any 
thing in any State constitution to the 
contrary notwithstanding. And it speaks 
of itself, too, in plain contradistinction 
from a confederation ; for it says that 
all debts contracted, and all engagements 
entered into, by the United States, shall 
be as A'alid under this Constitution as 
under the Confederation. It does not 
say, as valid under this compact, or this 
league, or this confederation, as under 
the former confederation, but as valid 
under this Constitution. 

This, then, Sir, is declared to be a 
constitution. A constitution is the fun- 
damental law of the state; and this is 
expressly declared to be the supremo 
law. It is as if the people had said, 
" We prescribe this fundamental law," 
or "this supreme law," for they do say 
that they establish this Constitution, 
and that it shall be the supreme law. 
They say that they ordain and estald'ish it. 
Now, Sir, what is the common applica- 
tion of these words? We do not sj^ak 
of ordainin(j leagues and compacts. If 
this was intended to be a compact or 
league, and the States to be parties to it, 
why was it not so said? Why is thertj 



284 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



found no one expression in the whole in- 
strument indicating such intent? The 
old Confederation was expressly called a 
lca(/ue, and into this league it was de- 
clared that the States, as States, severally 
entered. Why was not similar language 
used in tlie Constitution, if a similar in- 
tention had existed? Why was it not 
said, "the States enter into this new 
league," " the States form this new con- 
federation," or " the States agree to this 
new compact " ? Or why was it not said, 
in the language of the gentleman's res- 
olution, tliat the people of the several 
States acceded to this compact in their 
sovereign capacities? What reason is 
there for supposing that the framers of 
the Constitution rejected expressions 
appropriate to their own meaning, and 
adopted others wholly at war with that 



meaning? 



Again, Sir, the Constitution speaks 
of tliat political system whicli is estab- 
lished as " the government of the United 
States." Is it not doing strange vio- 
lence to language to call a league or 
a compact between sovereign powers a 
(jovernmenl f The government of a state 
is that organization in which the politi- 
cal power resides. It is the political 
being created by the constitution or 
fundamental law. The broad and clear 
difference between a government and a 
league or compact is, that a government 
is a body politic; it has a will of its 
own; and it possesses powers and facul- 
ties to execute its own purposes. Every 
compact looks to some power to enforce 
its stipulations. Even in a compact 
between sovereign communities, there 
always exists this ultimate reference to a 
power to insure its execution; although, 
in such case, this power is but the force 
of one party against the force of an- 
other; that is to say, the power of war. 
But a government executes its decisions 
by its own supreme authority. Its use 
of force in compelling obedience to its 
own enactments is not war. It contem- 
plates no opposing party having a right 
of resistance. It rests on its own power 
to enforce its own will; and when it 
ceases to possess this power, it is no 
longer a government. 



Mr. President, T concur so generally 
in the very able speech of the gentleman 
from Virginia near me,^ that it is not 
without diffidence and regret that I ven- 
ture to differ with him on any point. 
His opinions. Sir, are redolent of the 
doctrines of a very distinguished school, 
for which I have the highest regard, of 
whose doctrines I can say, what I can 
also say of the gentleman's speech, that, 
while I concur in the results, I must be 
pernutted to hesitate about some of the 
premises. I do not agree that the Con- 
stitution is a compact between States in 
their sovereign capacities. I do not 
agree, that, in strictness of language, it 
is a compact at all. But I do agree 
that it is founded on consent or agree- 
ment, or on compact, if the gentleman 
prefers that word, and means no more 
by it than voluntary consent or agree- 
ment. The Constitution, Sir, is not a 
contract, but the result of a contract; 
meaning by contract no more than as- 
sent. Founded on consent, it is a 
government proper. Adopted by the 
agreement of the people of the United 
States, when adopted, it has become a 
Constitution. The people have agreed 
to make a Constitution ; but when made, 
that Constitution becomes what its name 
imports. It is no longer a mere agree- 
ment. Our laws, Sir, have their foun- 
dation in the agreement or consent of 
the two houses of Congress. We say, 
habitually, that one house proposes a 
bill, and the other agrees to it; but the 
result of this agreement is not a com- 
pact, but a law. The law, the statute, 
is not the agreement, but something 
created by the agreement; and some- 
thing which, when created, has a new 
character, and acts by its own author- 
ity. So the Constitution of the United 
States, founded in or on the consent of 
the people, may be said to rest on com- 
pact or consent ; but it is not itself tlie 
compact, but its result. When the peo- 
ple agree to erect a government, and 
actually erect it, the thing is done, and 
the agreement is at an end. The com- 
pact is executed, and the end designed 
by it attained. Henceforth, the fruit 
1 Mr. Rives. 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



285 



I 



of the agreement exists, but the agree- 
ment itself is merged in its own accom- 
plishment ; since there can be no longer 
a subsisting agreement or compact to 
form a constitution or government, after 
that constitution or government has been 
actually formed and established. 

It appears to me, Mr. President, that 
the plainest account of the establish- 
ment of this government presents the 
most just and philosophical view of its 
foundation. The people of the several 
States had tlieir separate State govern- 
ments; and between the States there 
also existed a Confederation. With this 
condition of things the people were not 
satisfied, as the Confederation had been 
found not to fulfil its intended objects. 
It was proposed, therefore, to erect a 
new, common government, which should 
possess certain definite powers, such as 
regarded the prosperity of the people of 
all the States, and to be formed upon 
the general model of American consti- 
tutions. This proposal was assented 
to, and an instrument was presented to 
the people of the several States for their 
consideration. They approved it, and 
agreed to adopt it, as a Constitution. 
They executed that agreement; they 
adopted the Constitution as a Constitu- 
tion, and henceforth it must stand as a 
Constitution until it shall be altogether 
destroyed. Now, Sir, is not this the 
truth of the whole matter? And is not 
all that we have heard of compact be- 
tween sovereign States the mere effect 
of a theoretical and artificial mode of 
reasoning upon the subject ? a mode of 
reasoning which disregards plain facts 
for the sake of hypothesis? 

Mr. President, the nature of sover- 
eignty or sovereign power has been ex- 
tensively discussed by gentlemen on this 
occasion, as it generally is wlien tiie ori- 
gin of our goveinment is debated. But 
I confess myself not entirely satisfied 
with argnments and illustrations drawn 
from that topic. The sovereignty of 
governmt^nt is an idea belonging to the 
other side of the Atlantic. No such 
thing is known in North America. Our 
governments are all limited. In Eu- 
rope, sovereignty is of feudal origin. 



and imports no more than the state of 
the sovereign. It comprises his rjglits, 
duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and 
powers. But with us, all jKiwer is with 
the people. They alone are sovereign ; 
and they erect what governments they 
please, and confer on them such powers 
as they please. None of these govern- 
ments is sovereign, in the J^uropean 
sense of the word, all being restrained 
by written constitutions. It .seems to 
me, therefore, that we only perplex our- 
selves when we attempt to explain the 
relations existing between the general 
government and the several State gov- 
ernments, according to those ideas of 
sovereignty which prevail under systems 
essentially different from our own. 

But, Sir, to return to the Constitu- 
tion itself; let me inquire what it relies 
upon for its own continuance and sup- 
port. I hear it often suggested, that 
the States, by refusing to appoint Sena- 
tors and Electors, might bring this gov- 
ernment to an end. Perhaps that is 
true ; but the same may be said of the 
State governments themselves. Sup- 
pose the legislature of a State, having 
the power to appoint the governor and 
the judges, should omit that duty, would 
not the State government remain unor- 
ganized? No doubt, all elective govern- 
ments may be broken up by a general 
abandonment, on the part of those in- 
trusted with political powers, of their 
appropriate duties. But one popular 
government has, in this respect, as 
much security as another. The main- 
tenance of this Constitution does not 
depend on the plighted faith of the 
States, as States, to support it; and tliis 
again shows that it is not a league. It 
relies on individual duty and ol>liga- 
tion. 

The Constitution of the United States 
creates direct relations between this 
government and individuals. This gov- 
ernment may punish individnals for 
treason, and all other crimes in the 
code, when committed against the Unit- 
ed States. It has power, also, to tax 
individuals, in any mode, and to any 
extent; and it possesses the furtlier 
power of demanding from individuals 



286 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



military service. Nothing, certainly, 
can more clearly distinguish a govern- 
ment from a confederation of states 
than the possession of these powers. 
No closer relations can exist between 
individuals and any government. 

On the other hand, the government 
owes high and solemn duties to every 
citizen of the country. It is bound to 
protect him in his most important rights 
and interests. It makes war for his 
protection, and no other government in 
the country can make war. It makes 
peace for his protection, and no other 
government can make peace. It main- 
tains armies and navies for his defence 
and security, and no other government 
is allowed to maintain them. He goes 
abroad beneath its flag, and carries over 
all the earth a national character im- 
parted to him by this government, and 
which no other government can impart. 
In whatever relates to war, to peace, to 
commerce, he knows no other govern- 
ment. All these. Sir, are connections 
as dear and as sacred as can bind indi- 
viduals to any government on earth. 
It is not, therefore, a compact between 
States, but a government proper, operat- 
ing directly upon individuals, yielding 
to them protection on the one hand, 
and demanding from them obedience on 
the other. 

There is no language in the whole 
Constitution applicable to a confedera- 
tion of States. If the States be parties, 
as States, what are their rights, and 
what their respective covenants and stip- 
ulations? And where are their rights, 
covenants, and stipulations expressed? 
The States engage for nothing, they 
promise nothing. In the Articles of 
Confederation, they did make promises, 
and did enter into engagements, and did 
plight tlie faith of each State for their 
fulfilment; but in the Constitution there 
is notliing of that kind. The reason is, 
that, in the Constitution, it h the people 
who speak, and not the States. The 
people ordain the Constitution, and 
therein address themselves to the States, 
and to the legislatures of the States, in 
the language of injunction and prohibi- 
tion. The Constitution utters its be- 



hests in the name and by authority of 
the people, and it does not exact fi-om 
States any plighted public faith to main- 
tain it. On the contrary, it makes its 
own preservation depend on individual 
duty and individual obligation. Sir, 
the States cannot omit to appoint Sena- 
tors and Electors. It is not a matter 
resting in State discretion or State pleas- 
ure. The Constitution has taken better 
care of its own preservation. It lays its 
hand on individual conscience and indi- 
vidual duty. It incapacitates any man 
to sit in the legislature of a State, who 
shall not first have taken his solemn 
oath to support the Constitution of the 
United States. From the obligation of 
this oath, no State power can discharge 
him. All the members of all the State 
legislatures are as religiously bound to 
support the Constitution of the United 
States as they are to support their own 
State constitution. Nay, Sir, they are 
as solemnly sworn to support it as we 
ourselves are, who are members of Con- 
gress. 

No member of a State legislature can 
refuse to proceed, at the proper time, 
to elect Senators to Congress, or to pro- 
vide for the choice of Electors of Presi- 
dent and Vice-President, any more than 
the members of this Senate can refuse, 
when the appointed day arrives, to meet 
the members of the other house, to 
count the votes for those officers, and 
ascertain who are chosen. In both 
cases, the duty binds, and with equal 
strength, the conscience of the individ- 
ual member, and it is imposed on all by 
an oath in the same words. Let it then 
never be said. Sir, that it is a matter of 
discretion with the States wiiether they 
will continue the government, or break 
it up by refusing to appoint Senators 
and to elect Electors. They have no 
discretion in the matter. The membei-s 
of their legislatures cannot avoid doing 
either, so often as the time arrives, with- 
out a direct violation of their duty and 
their oaths; such a violation as would 
break up any other government. 

Looking still further to the provisions 
of the Constitution itself, in order to 
learn its true character, we find its great 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATKS. 



287 



.ipparent purpose to be, to unite the peo- 
ple of all the States under one general 
government, for certain definito objects, 
and, to the extent of this union, to re- 
strain the separate authority of the States. 
Congress only can declare war; there- 
fore, when one State is at war with a 
foreign nation, all must be at war. The 
President and the Senate only can make 
jieace; when peace is made for one 
State, therefore, it must be made for 
all. 

Can any thing be conceived more pre- 
]wsterous, than that any State should 
have power to nullify the proceedings 
of the general government respecting 
peace and war? When war is declared 
by a law of Congress, can a single State 
nullify that law, and remain at peace? 
And yet she may nullify that law as 
well as any other. If the President 
and Senate make peace, may one State, 
nevertheless, continue the war? And 
yt't, if she can nullify a law, she may 
quite as well nullify a treaty. 

The truth is, Mr. President, and no 
ingenuity of argument, no subtilty of 
di.-itinction can evade it, that, as to cer- 
tain purposes, the people of the United 
States are one people. They are one 
in making war, and one in making 
jieace; they are one in regulating com- 
merce, and one in laying duties of im- 
posts. The very end and purpose of the 
Constitution was, to make them one 
people in these particulars; and it has 
c'iTectually accomplished its object. All 
this is apparent on the face of the Con- 
stitution itself. I have already said. 
Sir, that to obtain a power of direct 
legislation over the people, especially in 
icgard to imposts, was always promi- 
nent as a reason for getting rid of the 
(Confederation, and forming a now Con- 
stitution. Among innumerable proofs 
of this, before the assembling of the 
Convention, allow me to refer only to 
the report of the committee of the old 
(Congress, July, 1785. 

But, Sir, let us go to the actual forma- 
tion of the Constitution; let us open 
the journal of the Convention itself, and 
we shall see that the very first resolu- 
tion which the Convention adopted wivs. 



"That a national government 
ought to be established, consist- 
ing of a supreme legislatuiu:, .ju- 
diciaky, and executive." 

This itself completely negatives all 
idea of league, and comiiaet, and con- 
federation. Terms could not be cho.sen 
more fit to express an intention to estab- 
lish a national government, and to ban- 
ish for ever all notion of a compact 
between sovereign States. 

This resolution was adopted on the 
30th of IVIay, 1787. Afterwards, tlie 
style was altered, and, instead of being 
called a national government, it was 
called the government of the United 
States; but the substance of this re.s- 
olution was retained, and was at the 
head of that list of resolutions which 
was afterwards sent to the conmiittee 
who were to frame the instrument. 

It is true, there w'ere gentlemen in 
the Convention, who were for retaining 
the Confederation, and amending its 
Articles; but the majority was against 
this, and was for a national govern- 
ment. Mr. Patterson's propositions, 
which were for continuing the Arti- 
cles of Confederation with additional 
powers, were submitted to the Conven- 
tion on the 15th of June, and referred 
to the committee of the whole. The 
resolutions forming the T)asis of a na- 
tional government, which had once 
been agreed to in the committee of the 
whole, and reported, were recommitted 
to the same committee, on the same 
day. The Convention, then, in com- 
mittee of the whole, on the 19th of 
June, had both these plans before them; 
that is to say, the plan of a confeder- 
acy, or compact, between States, and 
the plan of a national government. 
Both these plans were considered and 
debated, and the committee reported, 
" That they do not agree to the i)rop()si- 
tions offered by the honorable Mr. Pat- 
terson, but that they again submit tlie 
resolutions formerly reported." If, Sir, 
any historical fact in the world be plain 
and undeniable, it is that the Convention 
deliberated on the ex])ediency of con- 
tinuing tlie Confederation, witli some 
amendments, and rejected that scheme, 



288 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



and adopted the plan of a national 
government, with a legislature, an ex- 
ecutive, and a judiciary of its own. 
They were asked to preserve the league ; 
they rejected the proposition. They 
were asked to continue the existing 
compact between States; they rejected 
it. They rejected compact, league, and 
confederation, and set themselves about 
framing the constitution of a national 
government; and they accomplished 
what they undertook. 

If men will open their eyes fairly to 
the lights of history, it is impossible to 
be deceived on this point. The great 
object was to supersede the Confedera- 
tion by a regular government; because, 
under the Confederation, Congress had 
power only to make requisitions on 
States; and if States declined compli- 
ance, as they did, there was no remedy 
but war against such delinquent States. 
It would seem, from Mr. Jefferson's 
correspondence, i. 1786 and 1787, that 
he was of opinion that even this remedy 
ought to be tried. " There will be no 
money in the treasury," said he, "till 
the confederacy shows its teeth ' ' ; and 
he suggests that a single frigate would 
soon levy, on the commerce of a delin- 
quent State, the deficiency of its contri- 
bution. But this would be war ; and it 
was evident that a confederacy could 
not long hold together, which should be 
at war with its members. The Consti- 
tution was adopted to avoid this neces- 
sity. It was adopted that there might 
be a government which should act di- 
rectly on individuals, without borrow- 
ing aid from the State governments. 
This is clear as light itself on the very 
face of the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion, and its whole histoiy tends to the 
same conclusion. Its framers gave this 
very reason for their work in the most 
distinct terms. Allow me to quote but 
one or two proofs, out of hundreds. 
That State, so small in territory, but 
so distinguished for learning and talent, 
Connecticut, had sent to the general 
Convention, among other members, 
Samuel Johnston and Oliver Ellsworth. 
The Constitution having been framed, 
it was submitted to a convention of the 



people of Connecticut for ratification on 
the part of that State; and Mr. John- 
ston and IVIr. Ellsworth were also mem- 
bers of this convention. On the first 
day of the debates, being called on to 
explain the reasons which led the Con- 
vention at Philadelphia to recommend 
such a Constitution, after showing the 
insufficiency of the existing confeder- 
acy, inasmuch as it applied to States, 
as States, Mr. Johnston proceeded to 
say: — 

" The Convention saw this imperfection 
in attempting to legislate for States in tlieir 
political capacity, that the coercion of law 
can be exercised by notliing but a military 
force. They have, therefore, gone upon 
entirely new ground. They have formed 
one new nation out of the individual 
States. The Constitution vests in the 
general legislature a power to make laws 
in matters of national concern ; to appoint 
judges to decide tipon these laws ; and to 
appoint officers to carry them into execu- 
tion. This excludes tlie idea of an armed 
force. The power which is to enforce 
these laws is to be a legal power, vested in 
proper magistrates. The force which is to 
be employed is the energy of law ; and 
this force is to operate only upon individ- 
uals who fail in their duty to their conn- 
try. This is the peculiar glory of the 
Constitution, that it depends upon the mild 
and equal energy of tlie magistracy for 
the execution of the laws." 

In the further course of the debate, 
Mr. Ellsworth said: — 

" In republics, it is a fundamental princi- 
ple, that tlie majority govern, and that tlie 
minority comply with the general voice. 
How contrary, then, to republican princi- 
ples, how humiliating, is our present situa- 
tion ! A single State can rise up, and put 
a veto upon the most important pubHc 
measures. We have seen this actually 
take place; a single State has controlled 
the general voice of the Union ; a minority, 
a very small minority, has governed us. 
So far is this from being consistent with 
republican principles, tliat it is, in effect, 
the worst species of monarchy. 

" Hence we see how necessary for the 
Union is a coercive principle. No man pre- 
tends the contrary. We all see and feel 
this necessity. The only question is, Shall 
it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



289 



arms'? There is no other possible alterna- 
tive. Where will those who oppose a co- 
ercion of law come out 1 Where will they 
end ? A necessary consequence of their 
principles is a war of the States one against 
another. I am for coercion by law ; that 
coercion which acts only upon delinquent 
individuals. This Constitution does not 
attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, 
in their political capacity. No coercion is 
api)licable to such bodies, but that of an 
armed force. If we should attempt to exe- 
cute the laws of the Union by sending an 
armed force against a delinquent State, it 
would involve the good and bad, the inno- 
cent and guilty, in the same calamity. But 
this legal coercion singles out the guilty 
individual, and punishes him for breaking 
the laws of the Union." 

Indeed, Sir, if we look to all contem- 
porary history, to the numbers of the 
Federalist, to the debates in the con- 
ventions, to the publications of friends 
and foes, they all agree, that a change 
had been made from a confederacy of 
States to a different system; they all 
agree, that the Convention had formed 
a Constitution for a national govern- 
ment. With this re-sult some were satis- 
fied, and some were dissatisfied; but all 
admitted that the thing had been done. 
In none of these various productions and 
publications did any one intimate that 
the new Constitution was but another 
compact between States in their sover- 
eign capacities. I do not find such an 
opinion advanced in a single instance. 
Everywhere, the people were told that 
the old Confederation was to be aban- 
doned, and a new system to be tried; 
that a proper government was proposed, 
to be founded in the name of the people, 
and to have a regular organization of its 
own. Everywhere, the people were told 
that it was to be a government with 
direct powers to make laws over individ- 
uals, and to lay taxes and imposts with- 
out the consent of the States. Every- 
where, it was understood to be a popular 
Constitution. It came to the people for 
their adoption, and was to re.st on the 
same deep foundation as the State 
constitutions themselves. Its most dis- 
tinguished advocates, who had been 
theiuselves members of the Convention, 



declared that the very object of submit- 
ting the Constitution to the people was, 
to preclude the possibility of its being 
regarded as a mere compact. " However 
gross a heresy," say the writers of the 
Federalist, "it may be to maintain 
that a party to a compact lias a right to 
revoke that compact, the doctrine itself 
has had respectable advocates. The pos- 
sibility of a question of this nature 
proves the necessity of laying the foun- 
dations of our national government 
deeper than in the mere sanction of 
delegated authority. The fabric of 
American empire ought to rest on the 
solid basis of the consent of the 

PEOPLE." 

Such is the language, Sir, ad ' eased 
to the people, while they yet had the 
Constitution under consideration. The 
powers conferred on the new govern- 
ment were perfectly well understood to 
be conferred, not by any State, or the 
people of any State, but by the people 
of the United States. Virginia is more 
explicit, perhaps, in this particular, than 
any other State. Her convention, as- 
sembled to ratify the Constitution, "in 
the name and behalf of the people of 
Virginia, declare and make known, that 
the powers granted under the Constitu- 
tion, bei7ig derived from the people of the 
United States, may be resumed by them 
whenever the same shall be perverted to 
their injury or oppression." 

Is this language wliich describes the 
formation of a compact between States? 
or language describing the grant of pow- 
ers to a new government, by the whole 
people of the United States? 

Among all the other ratifications, there 
is not one which speaks of the Constitu- 
tion as a compact between States. Those 
of Massachusetts and New JIampshire 
express tlie transaction, in my opinion, 
with sufficient accuracy. Tin-y recognize 
the Divine goodness " in affording the 
PEOPLE OF the United St.\tes an ojv 
portunity of entering into an explicit 
and solemn compact with each other, by 
as.sentinr/ to and rdtlfi/in;/ a new Constitu- 
tion." You will ob.serve, Sir, that it i.s 
the PEOPLE, and not the States, who 
have entered into this compact; and it 



19 



k 



290 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



is the PKOPLE of all the United States. 
These conventions, by this form of ex- 
pression, meant merely to say, that the 
people of the United States had, by the 
blessing of Trovidence, enjoyed the op- 
portunity of establishing a new Con- 
stitution, founded in the consent of the 
people. This consent of the people has 
been called, by European writers, the 
social compact ; and, in conformity to this 
common mode of expression, these con- 
ventions speak of that assent, on which 
the new Constitution was to rest, as an 
explicit and solemn compact, not which 
the States had entered into with each 
other, but which the people of the United 
States had entered into. 

Finally, Sir, how can any man get 
over the words of the Constitution it- 
self ? — "We, the people of the 
United States, do ordain and es- 
tablish THIS Constitution." These 
words must cease to be a part of the 
Constitution, they must be obliterated 
from the parchment on which they are 
wi'itten, before any human ingenuity or 
human argument can remove the popular 
basis on which that Constitution rests, 
and turn the instrument into a mere 
compact between sovereign States. 

The second proposition. Sir, which I 
propose to maintain, is, that no State 
authority can dissolve the relations sub- 
sisting between the government of the 
United States and individuals ; that 
nothing can dissolve these relations but 
revolution; and that, therefore, there 
can be no such thing as secession without 
revolution. All this follows, as it seems 
to me, as a just consequence, if it be 
first proved that the Constitution of the 
United States is a government proper, 
owing protection to individuals, and en- 
titled to their obedience. 

The people. Sir, in every State, live 
under two governments. They owe 
obedience to both. These governments, 
though distinct, are not adverse. Each 
has its separate sphere, and its peculiar 
powers and duties. It is not a contest 
between two sovereigns for the same 
power, like the wars of the rival houses 
in England ; nor is it a dispute between 



a government de facto and a govern- 
ment de jure. It is the case of a divis- 
ion of powers between two governments, 
made by the people, to whom both are 
responsible. Xeither can dispense with 
the duty which individuals owe to the 
other; neither can call itself master of 
the other: the people are masters of 
both. This division of power, it is true, 
is in a gi-eat measure unknown in Europe. 
It is the peculiar system of America; 
and, though new and singular, it is not 
incomprehensible. The State constitu- 
tions are established by the people oi 
the States. This Constitution is estab- 
lished by the people of all the States. 
How, then, can a State secede? How 
can a State undo what the whole people 
have done? How can she absolve her 
citizens from their obedience to the laws 
of the United States ? How can she annul 
their obligations and oaths? How can 
the members of her legislature renounce 
their own oaths? Sir, secession, as a 
revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a 
right to be proclaimed in the midst of 
civil commotions, and asserted at the 
head of armies, I can understand it. 
But as a practical right, existing under 
the Constitution, and in conformity with 
its provisions, it seems to me to be noth- 
ing but a plain absurdity; for it sup- 
poses resistance to government, under 
the authority of government itself; it 
supposes dismemberment, without vio- 
lating the principles of union; it sup- 
poses opposition to law, without crime; 
it supposes the violation of oaths, with- 
out responsibility ; it supposes the total 
overthrow of government, without revo- 
lution. 

The Constitution, Sir, regards itself 
as perpetual and immortal. It seeks to 
establish a union among the people of 
the States, which shall last through all 
time. Or, if the common fate of things 
human must be expected at some period 
to happen to it, yet that catastrophe is 
not anticipated. 

The instrument contains ample pro- 
visions for its amendment, at all times ; 
none for its abandonment, at any time. 
It declares that new States may come 
into the Union, but it does not declare 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



291 



that old States may go out. The Union 
is not a temporary partnership of States. 
It is the association of the peoi)le, under 
a constitution of government, uniting 
their power, joining together their high- 
est interests, cementing their present 
enjoyments, and blending, in one indi- 
visible mass, all their hopes for the fu- 
ture. Whatsoever is steadfast in just 
political prineii>les; whatsoever is per- 
manent in the structure of human so- 
ciety; whatsoever there is which can 
derive an enduring character from being 
founded on deep-laid principles of con- 
stitutional liberty and on the broad 
foundations of the public will, — all 
these unite to entitle this instrument to 
be regarded as a permanent constitution 
of government. 

In the next place, 'Mr. President, I 
contend that there is a supreme law of 
the land, consisting of the Constitution, 
acts of Congress passed in pursuance of 
it, and the public treaties. This will 
not be denied, because such are the very 
words of the Constitution. But I con- 
tend, farther, that it rightfully belongs 
to Congress, and to the courts of the 
United States, to settle the construction 
of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. 
This is denied; and here arises the great 
practical question. Who is to construe 
Jinallij the Constitulion of the United 
Slateff f We all agree that the Constitu- 
tion is the supreme law ; but who shall 
interpret that law? In our system of 
the division of powers between different 
governments, controversies will neces- 
sarily sometimes arise, respecting the 
extent of the powers of each. Who 
shall decide these controversies? Does 
it rest with the general government, in 
all or any of its departments, to exercise 
tlie office of final interpreter? Or may 
each of the States, as well as the gen- 
eral government, claim this right of ul- 
timate decision? The practical result 
of this whole debate turns on this point. 
The gentleman contends that each State 
may judge for itself of any alleged vio- 
lation of the Constitution, and may 
finally decide for itself, and may exe- 
cute its own decisions by its own power. 
All the recent proceedings in South Caro- 



lina are founded on this claim of right. 
Her convention has pronounced the rev- 
enue laws of the United States uncon- 
stitutional; and this decision she does 
not allow any authority of the United 
States to overrule or reverse. Of course 
she rejects the authority of Congress, 
because the very object of the ordinance 
is to reverse the decision of Congress; 
and she rejects, too, the authority of the 
courts of the United States, because she 
expressly prohibits all ai)peal to those 
courts. It is in order to sustain this as- 
serted right of being her own judge, that 
she pronounces the Constitution of the 
United States to be but a compact, to 
which she is a party, and a sovereign 
party. If this be established, then the 
inference is supposed to follow, that, 
being sovereign, there is no power to 
control her decision; and her own judg- 
ment on her own compact is, and must 
be, conclusive. 

I have already endeavored. Sir, to 
point out the practical consequences of 
this doctrine, and to show how utterly 
inconsistent it is with all ideas of reg- 
ular government, and how soon its adop- 
tion would involve the whole country in 
revolution and absolute anarchy. I hope 
it is easy now to show. Sir, that a doc- 
trine bringing such consequences with it 
is not well founded; that it has nothing 
to stand on but theory and assumption ; 
and that it is refuted by plain and ex- 
press constitutional provisions. I think 
the government of the United States 
does possess, in its appropriate depart- 
ments, the authority of final decision on 
questions of disputed power. I think 
it possesses this authority, both by 
necessary implication and by express 
grant. 

It will not be denied, Sir, that thi.s 
authority naturally belongs to all gov- 
ernments. They all exerci.se it from 
necessity, and as a conseipience of the 
exercise of other powers. The State 
governments themselves possess it, ex- 
cept in that class of (luistions wliidi 
may arise between thorn and the gen- 
eral government, and in regard to which 
they have surrendered it, as well by the 
nature of the case as by clear coustitu- 



f 



292 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



tional provisions. In other and ordi- 
nary cases, whether a particular law be 
in conformity to the constitution of the 
State is a question which the State legis- 
lature or the State judiciary must deter- 
mine. We all know that these questions 
arise daily in the State governments, and 
are decided by those governments ; and 
I know no government which does not 
exercise a similar power. 

Upon general principles, then, the gov- 
ernment of the United States possesses 
this authority ; and this would hardly be 
denied were it not that there are other 
governments. But since there are State 
governments, and since these, like other 
governments, ordinarily construe their 
own powers, if the government of the 
United States construes its own powers 
also, which construction is to prevail in 
the case of opposite constructions ? And 
again, as in the case now actually before 
us, the State governments may under- 
take, not only to construe their own 
powers, but to decide directly on the 
extent of the powers of Congress. Con- 
gress has passed a law as being within 
its just powers; South Carolina denies 
that this law is within its just powers, 
and insists that she has the right so to 
decide this point, and that her decision 
is final. How are these questions to be 
settled ? 

In my opinion, Sir, even if the Con- 
stitution of the United States had made 
no express provision for such cases, it 
would yet be difficult to maintain, that, 
in a Constitution existing over four-and- 
twenty States, with equal authority over 
all, one could claim a right of construing 
it for the whole. This would seem a 
manifest impropriety; indeed, an ab- 
surdity. If the Constitution is a gov- 
ernment existing over all the States, 
though with limited powei\s, it necessa- 
rily follows, that, to the extent of those 
powers, it must be supreme. If it be 
not superior to the authority of a partic- 
ular State, it is not a national govern- 
ment. But as it is a government, as it 
has a legislative power of its own, and a 
judicial power coextensive with the legis- 
lative, the inference is irresistible that 
this government, thus created by the 



whole and for the whole, must have an 
authority superior to that of the partic- 
ular government of any one part. Con- 
gress is the legislature of all the people 
of the United States; the judiciary of 
the general government is the judiciary 
of all the people of the United States. 
To hold, therefore, that this legislature 
and this judiciary are subordinate in au- 
thority to the legislature and judiciary 
of a single State, is doing violence to 
all common sense, and overturning aU 
established principles. Congress must 
judge of the extent of its own powers 
so often as it is called on to exercise 
them, or it cannot act at all; and it 
must also act independent of State con- 
trol, or it cannot act at all. 

The riglit of State interposition strikes 
at the very foundation of the legislative 
power of CongTess. It possesses no ef- 
fective legislative power, if such right of 
State interposition exists ; because it can 
pass no law not subject to abrogation. 
It cannot make laws for the Union, if 
any part of the Union may pronounce 
its enactments void and of no effect. 
Its forms of legislation would be an idle 
ceremony, if, after aU, any one of four- 
and-twenty States might bid defiance to 
its authority. Without express provis- 
ion in the Constitution, therefore. Sir, 
this whole question is necessarily decided 
by those provisions which create a legis- 
lative power and a judicial power. If 
these exist in a government intended for 
the whole, the inevitable consequence is, 
that the laws of this legislative power 
and the decisions of this judicial power 
must be binding on and over the whole. 
No man can form the conception of 
a government existing over four-and- 
twenty States, with a regular legislative 
and judicial power, and of the existence 
at the same time of an authority, resid- 
ing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or 
discretion, the enactments and the de- 
cisions of such a government. I main- 
tain, therefore. Sir, that, from the na- 
ture of the case, and as an inference 
wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress 
and the decisions of the national courts 
must be of higher authority than State 
laws and State decisions. If this be not 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



203 



so, there is, there can be, no general 
government. 

But, Mr. President, the Constitution 
has not left this cardinal point without 
full and explicit provisions. First, as 
to the authority of Congress. Having 
enumerated the specific powers con- 
ferred on Congress, the Constitution 
adds, as a distinct and substantive 
clause, the following, viz.: "To make 
all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the 
foregoing powers, and all other powers 
vested by this Constitution in the gov- 
ernment of the United States, or in any 
department or officer thereof." If this 
means any thing, it means that Con- 
gress may judge of the true extent and 
j ust interpretation of the specific powers 
granted to it, and may judge also of 
what is necessary and proper for exe- 
cuting those powers. K Congress is to 
j udge of what is necessary for the execu- 
tion of its powers, it mnst, of necessity, 
judge of the extent and interiiretation of 
tliose powers. 

And in regard, Sir, to the judiciary, 
the Constitution is still more express 
and emphatic. It declares that the ju- 
dicial power shall extend to all caxes in 
law or equity arising under the Consti- 
tution, laws of the United States, and 
treaties ; that there shall be one Supreme 
Court, and that this Supreme Court shall 
have appellate jurisdiction of all these 
cases, subject to such exceptions as Con- 
gress may make. It is impossible to 
escape from the generality of these 
words. If a case arises under the Con- 
stitution, that is, if a case arises de- 
pending on the construction of the Con- 
stitution, the judicial power of the United 
States extends to it. It reaches the case, 
the question: it attaches the power of the 
national judicature to the cane itself, in 
whatever court it may arise or exist; 
and in this cane the Supreme Court has 
appellate jurisdiction over all courts 
whatever. Xo language could provide 
with more effect and precision than is 
here done, for subjecting constitutional 
questions to the ultimate decision of 
the Supreme Court. And, Sir, this is 
exactly what the Convention found it 



necessary to provide for, and intended to 
provide for. It is, too, exactly what the 
people were universally told wa« done 
when they adopted the Constitution. 
One of the first resolutions adopted by 
the Convention was in these words, viz. : 
"That the jurisdiction of the national 
judiciary shall extend to cases which re- 
spect the collection of the national revenue, 
and questions which involve the national 
peace and harmony." Now, Sir, this 
either had no sensible meaning at all. or 
else it meant that the jurisdiction of the 
national judiciary should extend to these 
questions, with a paramount authority. 
It is not to be supposed that the Con- 
vention intended that the power of the 
national judiciary should extend to these 
questions, and that the power of the ju- 
dicatures of the States should also ex- 
tend to them, with equal power of Jinal 
decision. This would be to defeat the 
whole object of the provision. There 
were thirteen judicatures already in ex- 
istence. The evil complained of, or the 
danger to be guarded against, was con- 
tradiction and repugnance in the de- 
cisions of these judicatures. If the 
framers of the Constitution meant to 
create a fourteenth, and yet not to give 
it power to revise and control the decis- 
ions of the existing thirteen, then they 
only intended to augment the existing 
evil and the apprehended danger by in- 
creasing still further the chances of dis- 
cordant judgments. Why, Sir, has it 
become a settled axiom in jxilitics that 
every govenmient must have a judicial 
power coextensive with its legislative 
power? Certainly, there is oidy this 
reason, namely, that the laws may re- 
ceive a uniform interjiretation and a 
uniform execution. 'I'his object cannot 
be otherwise attained. A statute is what 
it is judicially interpreted to be; and if 
it be construed one way in New Hamp- 
shire, and another way in (^.eorgia, there 
is no uniform law. One sn]>r('ine court, 
with appellate and final juri.sdiction, i.s 
the luitural and only ade.iuate means, in 
any government, to .secure tliis uniform- 
ity. The Convention saw all this clearly ; 
and the resolution which I have (juot- 
ed, never afterwards rescinded, jiassed 



I 



294 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



through various modifications, till it 
finally received the form which the ar- 
ticle now bears in the Constitution. 

It is imdeniably true, then, that the 
framers of the Constitution intended to 
create a national judicial power, which 
should be ]iaramount on national sub- 
jects. And after the Constitution was 
framed, and while the whole country 
was engaged in discussing its merits, 
one of its most distinguished advocates, 
Mr. Madison, told the people that it 
was true, that, in controversies relating to 
the boundary hetioeen the tioo jurisdictions, 
the tribunal lohich is ultimately to decide 
is to be established under the general gov- 
ernment. Mr. Martin, who had been a 
member of the Convention, asserted the 
same thing to the legislature of Mary- 
land, and urged it as a reason for re- 
jecting the Constitution. Mr. Pinck- 
ney, himself also a leading member 
of the Convention, declared it to the 
people of South Carolina. Everywhere 
it was admitted, by friends and foes, 
that this power was in the Constitution. 
By some it was thought dangerous, by 
most it was thought necessary ; but by 
aU it was agreed to be a power actually 
contained in the instrument. The Con- 
vention saw the absolute necessity of 
some control in the national govern- 
ment over State laws. Different modes 
of establishing this control were sug- 
gested and considered. At one time, it 
was proposed that the laws of the 
States should, from time to time, be 
laid before Congress, and that Congress 
should possess a negative over them. 
But this was thought inexpedient and 
iiiadmissible ; and in its place, and ex- 
pressly as a substitute for it, the exist- 
ing provision was introduced ; that is to 
say, a provision by which the federal 
courts should have authority to overrule 
such State laws as might be in man- 
ifest contravention of the Constitution. 
The writers of the Federalist, in ex- 
plaining the Constitution, while it was 
yet pending before the people, and still 
unadopted, give this account of the 
matter in terms, and assign this reason 
for the article as it now stands. By 
this provision Congress escaped the ne- 



cessity of any revision of State laws, 
left the whole sphere of State legisla- 
tion quite untouched, and yet obtained 
a security against any infringement of 
the constitutional power of the general 
government. Indeed, Sir, allow me to 
ask again, if the national judiciai-y was 
not to exercise a power of revision on 
constitutional questions over the judica- 
tures of the States, why was any na- 
tional judicature erected at all? Can 
any man give a sensible reason for hav- 
ing a judicial power in this government, 
unless it be for the sake of maintaining 
a uniformity of decision on questions 
arising under the Constitution and laws 
of Congress, and insuring its execution? 
And does not this very idea of uni- 
formity necessarily imply that the con- 
struction given by the national courts 
is to be the prevailing construction? 
How else. Sir, is it possible that uni- 
formity can be preserved? 

Gentlemen appear to me. Sir, to look 
at but one side of the question. They 
regard only the supposed danger of 
trusting a government with the inter- 
pretation of its owai powers. But will 
they view the question in its other as- 
pect? "Will they shov/ us how it is 
possible for a government to get along 
wdth four-and-twenty interpreters of its 
laws and powers? Gentlemen argue, 
too, as if, in these cases, the State 
would be always right, and the general 
government always wrong. But sup- 
pose the reverse, — suppose the State 
wrong (and, since they differ, some of 
them must be wrong) , — are the most 
important and essential operations of 
the government to be embarrassed and 
arrested, because one State holds the 
contrary opinion? Mr. President, every 
arg-ument which refers the constitution- 
ality of acts of Congress to State de- 
cision appeals from the majority to the 
minority; it appeals from the common 
interest to a particular interest; from 
the counsels of all to the counsel of one ; 
and endeavors to supersede the judg- 
ment of the whole by the judgment of a 
part. 

I think it is clear. Sir, that the Con- 
stitution, by express provision, by defi- 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



295 



nite and unequivocal words, as well as 
by necessary implication, has consti- 
tuted the Supreme Court of the United 
States the appellate tribunal in all cases 
of a constitutional nature which assume 
the shape of a suit, in law or equity. 
And I think I cannot do better than to 
leave this part of the subject by reading 
the remarks made upon it in the con- 
vention of Connecticut, by Mr. Ells- 
worth; a gentleman. Sir, who has left 
behind him, on the records of the gov- 
ernment of his country, proofs of the 
clearest intelligence and of the deepest 
sagacity, as well as of the utmost purity 
and integrity of character. " This Con- 
stitution," says he, " defines the extent 
of the powers of the general govern- 
ment. If the general legislature should, 
at any time, overleap their limits, the 
judicial department is a constitutional 
check. If the United States go beyond 
their powers, if they make a law which 
the Constitution does not authorize, it 
is void; and the judiciary power, the 
national judges, who, to secure their 
impartiality, are to be made indepen- 
dent, will declare it to be void. On the 
other hand, if the States go beyond 
their limits, if they make a law which 
is a usurpation upon the general gov- 
ernment, the law is void; and upright, 
independent judges will declare it to 
be so." Nor did this remain merely 
matter of private opinion. In the very 
first session of the first Congress, with 
all these well-known objects, both of 
the Convention and the people, full and 
fresh in his mind, Mr. Ellsworth, as is 
generally understood, reported the bill 
for the organization of the judicial de- 
partment, and in that bill made pro- 
vision for the exercise of this appellate 
power of the Supreme Court, in all the 
proper cases, in whatsoever court aris- 
ing; and this appellate power has now 
been exercised for more than forty 
years, without interruption, and with- 
out doubt. 

As to the cases, Sir, which do not 
come before the courts, those political 
questions which terminate with the en- 
actments of Congress, it is of necessity 
that these should be ultimately decided 



by Congress itself. Like other legisla- 
tures, it must be trusted with this 
power. The members of Congress are 
chosen by the people, and tiiey are an- 
swerable to the people; like other public 
agents, they are bound by oath to suj)- 
port the Constitution. These are the 
securities that tiiey will not violate their 
duty, nor transcend their powers. They 
are the same securitii^s that prevail in 
other popular governments; nor is it 
easy to see how grants of power can be 
more safely guarded, without rendering 
them nugatory. If the case cannot come 
before the courts, and if Congress be not 
trusted with its decision, who shall de- 
cide it? The gentleman says, each State 
is to decide it for herself. If so, then, 
as I have already urged, what is law in 
one State is not law in another. Or, if 
the resistance of one State compels an 
entire rejieal of the law, then a minor- 
ity, and that a small one, governs the 
whole country. 

Sir, those who espouse the doctrines 
of nullification reject, as it seems to 
me, the first gi'eat principle of all re- 
publican liberty; that is, that the ma- 
jority must govern. In matters of com- 
mon concern, the judgment of a majority 
muM stand as the judgment of the whole. 
This is a law imposed on us by the ab- 
solute necessity of the case; and if we 
do not act upon it, there is no jiossibil- 
ity of maintaining any government but 
despotism. We hear loud and repeated 
denunciations against what is called 
ludjaritji f/ovenijiiettt. It is declared, 
with much warmth, that a majority 
government cannot be maintained in 
the United States. Wluit, then, do gen- 
tlemen wish? Do they wish to establish 
a minorilij government? Do they wish 
to subject the will of the many to the 
will of the few? The honorable gentle- 
man from South Carolina has spoken of 
absolute majorities and majoritii's con- 
current; laiiijuaw wlinllv unknown to 
our Constitution, and to which it is not 
easy to affix definite ideas. As far as I 
undtnstand it, it would teach us that the 
absolute majority may be found in Con- 
gress, but tiie majority concurrent nmst 
be looked for in the States; that is to 



296 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMrACT 



say, Sir, stripping the matter of this 
novelty of phrase, that the dissent of 
one or more States, as States, renders 
void the decision of a majority of Con- 
gress, so far as that State is concerned. 
And so this doctrine, running but a 
short career, like other dogmas of the 
day, terminates in nullification. 

If this vehement invective against 
majorities meant no more than that, in 
the construction of government, it is 
wise to provide checks and balances, so 
that there should be various limitations 
on the power of the mere majority, it 
would only mean what the Constitution 
of the United States has already abun- 
dantly provided. It is full of such 
checks and balances. In its very or- 
ganization, it adopts a broad and most 
effective principle in restraint of the 
power of mere majorities. A majority 
of the people elects the House of Repre- 
sentatives, but it does not elect the 
Senate. The Senate is elected by the 
States, each State having, in this respect, 
an equal power. No law, therefore, can 
pass, without the assent of the represent- 
atives of the people, and a majority of 
the representatives of the States also. 
A majority of the representatives of the 
people must concur, and a majority of 
the States must concur, in every act of 
Congress; and the President is elected 
on apian compounded of both these prin- 
ciples. But having composed one house 
of representatives chosen by the people 
in each State, according to their num- 
bers, and the other of an equal number 
of members from eveiy State, whether 
larger or smaller, the Constitution gives 
to majorities in these houses thus con- 
stituted the full and entire power of 
passing laws, subject always to the con- 
stitutional restrictions and to the ap- 
proval of the President. To subject 
them to any other power is clear usurpa- 
tion. The majority of one house may 
be controlled by the majoritj^ of the 
other; and both may be restrained by 
the President's negative. These are 
checks and balances provided by the 
Constitution, existing in the govern- 
ment itself, and wisely intended to 
secure deliberation and caution in legis- 



lative proceedings. But to resist the 
will of the majority in both houses, thus 
constitutionally exercised; to insist on 
the lawfulness of interposition by an 
extraneous power; to claim the right of 
defeating the will of Congress, by set- 
ting up against it the will of a single 
State, — is neither more nor less, as it 
strikes me, than a plain attempt to 
overthrow the government. The con- 
stituted authorities of the United States 
are no longer a government, if they be 
not masters of their own will ; they are 
no longer a government, if an external 
power may arrest their proceedings; 
they are no longer a government, if acts 
passed by both houses, and approved by 
the President, may be nullified by State 
vetoes or State ordinances. Does any 
one suppose it could make any differ- 
ence, as to the binding authority of an 
act of Congress, and of the duty of a 
State to respect it, whether it passed by 
a mere majority of both houses, or by 
three fourths of each, or the unanimous 
vote of each? Within the limits and 
restrictions of the Constitution, the gov- 
ernment of the United States, like all 
other popular governments, acts by 
majorities. It can act no otherwise. 
Whoever, therefore, denounces the gov- 
ernment of majorities, denounces the 
government of his own country, and 
denounces all free governments. And 
whoever would restrain these majorities, 
while acting within their constitutional 
limits, by an external power, whatever 
he may intend, asserts principles which, 
if adopted, can lead to nothing else 
than the destruction of the government 
itself. 

Does not the gentleman perceive, Sir, 
how his argument against majorities 
might here be retorted upon him? Does 
he not see how cogently he might be 
asked, whether it be the character of nul- 
lification to practise what it preaches? 
Look to South Carolina, at the present 
moment. How far are the rights of 
minorities there respected? I confess, 
Sir, I have not known, in peaceable 
times, the power of the majority carried 
with a higher hand, or upheld with 
more relentless disregard of the rights, 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



297 



feelings, and principles of the minority; 
— a minority embracing, as the gentle- 
man himself will admit, a large portion 
of the wortli and respectability of the 
State ; — a minority comprehending in its 
nnmbers men who have been associated 
with him, and with ns, in these halls of 
legislation; nuni who have served their 
country at home and honored it abroad; 
men who would cheerfully lay down 
their lives for their native State, in any 
cause which they could regard as the 
cause of honor and duty; men above 
fear, and above reproach, whose deepest 
grief and distress spring from the con- 
viction, that the present proceedings of 
the State must ultimately reflect discredit 
upon her. How is this minority, how 
are these men, regarded? They are en- 
thralled and disfranchised by ordinances 
and acts of legislation ; subjected to tests 
and oaths, incompatible, as they con- 
scientiously think, with oaths already 
taken, and obligations already assumed; 
they are proscribed and denounced as 
recreants to duty and patriotism, and 
slaves to a foreign power. Both the 
spirit which pursues them, and the posi- 
tive measures which emanate from that 
spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond 
all precedent within my knowledge, ex- 
cept in periods of professed revolution. 

It is not, Sir, one would think, for 
those who approve these proceedings to 
complain of the power of majorities. 

Mr. President, all popular govern- 
ments rest on two principles, or two 
assumptions: — 

First, That there is so far a common 
interest among those over whom the 
government extonds, as that it may pro- 
vide for the defence, protection, and 
good government of the whole, without 
injustice or ojipression to parts; and 

Secondly, That the representatives of 
the people, and especially the people 
themselves, are secure against general 
corruption, and may be trusted, there- 
fore, with the exercise of power, 
g Whoever argues against these princi- 
ples argues against the practicability of 
all free governments. And whoever 
admits these, must admit, or cannot 
deny, that power is as safe in the hands 



of Congress as in those of other repre- 
sentative bodies. Congress is not irre- 
sponsible. Its members are agents of tlie 
people, elected by them, answerable to 
them, and liable to be disjilaced or super- 
seded, at their pleasure ; and they po.ssess 
as fair a claim to the confidence of the 
people, while they continue to deserve it, 
as any other public political agents. 

If, then. Sir, the manifest intention 
of the Convention, and the contempo- 
rary admission of both friends and foes, 
prove any thing; if the plain text of the 
instrument itself, as well as the neces- 
sary implication from other provisions, 
prove any thing ; if the early legislation 
of Congress, the course of judicial decis- 
ions, acquiesced in by all the States for 
forty years, prove any thing, — then it 
is proved that there is a supreme law, 
and a final interpreter. 

My fourth and last proposition, Mr. 
President, was, that any attempt by a 
State to abrogate or nullify acts of Con- 
gress is a usurpation on the powers of 
the general government and on the 
equal rights of other States, a violation 
of the Constitution, and a proceeding 
essentially revolutionary. This is un- 
doubtedly true, if the preceding propo- 
sitions be regarded as proved. If the 
government of the United States be 
trusted with the duty, in any dei>art- 
ment, of declaring the extent of its own 
powers, then a State ordinance, or act 
of legislation, authorizing resistance to 
an act of Congress, on the alleged ground 
of its unconstitutionality, is manifestly 
a usurpation uix)n its powers. If the 
States have equal rights in nuitters con- 
cerning the whole, then for one State to 
set up her judgment against the judg- 
ment of the rest, and to insist on execut- 
ing that judgment by force, is also a 
manifest usurpation on the rights of 
other States. If the Constitution of the 
United States be a governnifut proper, 
with authority to pass laws, and to give 
them a uniform interpretation and exe- 
cution, then the intt'r])osilioii of a State, 
to enforce her own construction, antl to 
resist, as to herself, tiiat law which 
binds the other States, is a violation of 
the Constitution. 



298 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



If that be revolutionary which arrests 
the legislative, executive, and judicial 
power of government, dispenses with 
existing oaths and obligations of obedi- 
ence, and elevates another power to su- 
preme dominion, then nullification is 
revolutionary. Or if that be revolution- 
ary the natural tendency and practical 
effect of which are to break the Union 
into fragments, to sever all connection 
among the people of the respective 
States, and to prostrate this general 
government in the dust, then nullifica- 
tion is revolutionary. 

Nullification, Sir, is as distinctly rev- 
olutionary as secession; but I cannot 
say that the revolution which it seeks is 
one of so respectable a character. Se- 
cession would, it is true, abandon the 
Constitution altogether; but then it 
would profess to abandon it. AVhat- 
ever other inconsistencies it might run 
into, one, at least, it would avoid. It 
would not belong to a government, 
while it rejected its authority. It would 
not repel the burden, and continue to 
enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in 
passing laws which others are to obey, 
and yet reject their authority as to 
itself. It would not undertake to rec- 
oncile obedience to public authority 
with an asserted right of command over 
that same authority. It would not be in 
the government, and above the govern- 
ment, at the same time. But though 
secession may be a more respectable 
mode of attaining the object than nullifi- 
cation, it is not more truly revolutionary. 
Each, and both, resist the constitutional 
authorities; each, and both, would sever 
the Union and subvert the government. 

Mr. President, having detained the 
Senate so long already, I will not now 
examine at length the ordinance and 
laws of South Carolina. These papers 
are well drawn for their purpose. Their 
authors understood their own objects. 
They are called a peaceable remedy, and 
we have been told that South Carolina, 
after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. 
A very few words. Sir, will show the 
iiatm-e of this peaceable remedy, and of 
the lawsuit which South Carolina con- 
templates. 



In the first place, the ordinance de- 
clares the law of last July, and all other 
laws of the United States laying duties, 
to be absolutely null and void, and 
makes it unlawful for the constituted 
authorities of the United States to en- 
force the payment of such duties. It is 
therefore, Sir, an indictable offence, at 
this moment, in South Carolina, for any 
person to be concerned in collecting 
revenue under the laws of the United 
States. It being declared, by what is 
considered a fundamental law of the 
State, unlawful to collect these duties, 
an indictment lies, of course, against 
any one concerned in such collection; 
and he is, on general principles, liable 
to be punished by fine and imprison- 
ment. The terms, it is true, are, that it 
is unlawful ' ' to enforce the payment of 
duties ' ' ; but every custom-house ofiicer 
enforces payment while he detains the 
goods in order to obtain such payment. 
The ordinance, therefore, reaches every- 
body concerned in the collection of the 
duties. 

This is the first step in the prosecu- 
tion of the peaceable remedy. The 
second is more decisive. By the act 
commonly called the replevin law, any 
person whose goods are seized or de- 
tained by the collector for the payment 
of duties may sue out a writ of replevin, 
and, by virtue of that writ, the goods 
are to be restored to him. A writ of 
replevin is a writ which the sheriff is 
bound to execute, and for the execution 
of which he is bound to employ force, if 
necessary. He may call out the posse, 
and must do so, if resistance be made. 
This posse may be armed or unarmed. 
It may come forth with military array, 
and under the lead of military men. 
Whatever number of troops may be as- 
sembled in Charleston, they may be 
summoned, with the governor, or com- 
mander-in-chief, at their head, to come 
in aid of the sheriff. It is evident, 
then, Sir, that the whole military power 
of the State is to be employed, if neces- 
sary, in dispossessing the custom-house 
officers, and in seizing and holding the 
goods, without paying the duties. This is 
the second step in the peaceable remedy. 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



299 



b 



Sir, whatever pretences may be set 
up to the contrary, this is the direct ap- 
plication of force, and of military force. 
It is unlawful, in itself, to replevy jijoods 
in the custody of the collectors. Hut 
this unlawful act is to be done, and it is 
to be done by power. Here is a plain 
interposition, by physical force, to i-esist 
the laws of the Union. The legal mode 
of collecting duties is to detain the 
goods till such duties are paid or se- 
cui'ed. But force comes, and overpow- 
ers the collector and his assistants, and 
takes away the goods, leaving the duties 
luipaid. Tliere cannot be a clearer case 
of forcible resistance to law. And it is 
provided that the goods thus seized shall 
be held against any attempt to retake 
them, by the same force which seized 
them. 

Having thus dispossessed the officers 
of the government of the goods, with- 
out payment of duties, and seized and 
secured them by the strong arm of the 
State, only one thing more remains to 
be done, and that is, to cut off all possi- 
bility of legal redress; and that, too, is 
accomplished, or thought to be accom- 
})lished. The ordinance declares, tliat 
all judicial proceedings, founded 07i, the 
revenue laws (including, of course, pro- 
ceedings in the courts of the United 
States), s/iatl be null and void. This 
nullifies the judicial power of the United 
States. Then comes the test-oath act. 
This requires all State judges and jurors 
in the State courts to swear that they 
will execute the ordinance, and all acts 
of the legislature passed in pursuance 
thereof. The ordinance declares, that 
no appeal shall be allowed from the de- 
cision of the State courts to the Supreme 
Court of the United States ; and the re- 
plevin act makes it an indictable ofi'ence 
for any clerk to furnish a copy of the 
record, for the purpose of such appeal. 

The two principal provisions on which 
South Carolina relies, to resist the laws 
of the United States, and nullify the 
authority of this government, are, there- 
fore, these: — 

1. A forcible seizure of goods, before 
duties are paid or secured, by the power 
of the State, civil and military. 



2. The taking away, by the most 
eftectual means in her power, of all legal 
redress in the courts of the United 
States; the confining of judicial jiro- 
ceedings to her own State tril)unals; and 
the compelling of her judges and jurors 
of these her own courts to take an oath, 
beforehand, that they will decide all 
cases according to the ordinance, and 
the acts jmssed under it; that is, that 
they will decide the cause one way. 
They do not swear to tri/ it, on its own 
merits ; they only swear to decide it as 
nullification requires. 

The character. Sir, of these provis- 
ions defies comment. Their object is as 
]ilain as their means are extraordiiuiiy. 
They propose direct resistance, by the 
wliole power of the State, to laws of 
Congress, and cut off, by methods deemed 
adecpuite, any redress by legal and judi- 
cial authority. They arrest legislation, 
defy the executive, and banish the judi- 
cial power of this government. They 
authorize and command acts to be done, 
and done by force, botli of numbers and 
of arms, which, if done, and done by 
force, are clearly acts of rebellion and 
treason. 

Such, Sir, are the laws of South Caro- 
lina; such. Sir, is the peaceable remedy 
of nullification. Has not nullification 
reached. Sir, even thus early, that point 
of direct and forcible resistance to law 
to which i intimated, three years ago, it 
plainly tended? 

And now, Mr. President, what is the 
reason for passing laws like tliese? 
What are the oppressions experienced 
under the Union, calling for measures 
which thus threaten to sever and destroy 
itV What invasions of i>ublic liberty, 
what i-uin to private happiness, wliat 
long list of rights violated, or wrongs 
unredressed, is to justify to tlio coun- 
try, to posterity, and to the world, this 
assault upon the free Constitution of 
the United States, this groat and glori- 
ous work of our fathers? At this very 
moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in 
I>eace, and rejoices in jilonty. A gen- 
eral and a high prosperity pervades the 
country; and, judging by the common 
standard, l)v increase of population auil 



300 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



•wealth, or judging by the opinions of 
that portion of her people not embarked 
in these dangerous and desperate meas- 
ures, this prosperity overspreads South 
Carolina herself. 

Thus happy at home, our country, at 
the same time, holds high the character 
of her institutions, her power, her rapid 
growth, and her future destiny, in the 
eyes of all foreign states. One danger 
only creates hesitation ; one doubt only 
exists, to darken the otherwise unclouded 
brightness of that aspect which she ex- 
hibits to the view and to the admiration 
of the world. Need I say, that that 
doubt respects the permanency of our 
Union? and need I say, that that doubt 
is now caused, more than any thing 
else, by these very proceedings of South 
Carolina? Sir, all Europe is, at this 
moment, beholding us, and looking for 
the issue of this controversy; those who 
hate free institutions, with malignant 
hope; those who love them, with deep 
anxiety and shivering fear. 

The cause, then. Sir, the cause! Let 
the world know the cause which has 
thus induced one State of the Union to 
bid defiance to the power of the whole, 
and openly to talk of secession. Sir, 
the world will scarcely believe that this 
whole controversy, and all the desperate 
measures which its support requires, 
have no other foundation than a differ- 
ence of opinion upon a provision of the 
Constitution, between a majority of the 
people of South Carolina, on one side, 
and a vast majority of the whole people 
of the United States, on the other. It 
will not credit the fact, it will not admit 
the possibility, that, in an enlightened 
age, in a free, popular republic, under a 
constitution where the people govern, 
as they must always govern luider such 
systems, by majorities, at a time of un- 
precedented prosjierity. witliout practi- 
cal oppression, without evils such as may 
not only be pretended, but felt and expe- 
rienced, — evils not slight or temporary, 
but deep, permanent, and intolerable, 
— a single State should rush into con- 
flict with all the rest, attempt to put 
dov/n the power of the Union by her 
own laws, and to support those laws by 



her military power, and thus break up 
and destroy the world's last hope. And 
well the world may be incredulous. We, 
who see and hear it, can ourselves hardly 
yet believe it. Even after all that had 
preceded it, this ordinance struck the 
country with amazement. It was in- 
credible and inconceivable that South 
Carolina should plunge headlong into 
resistai^^pe to the laws on a matter of 
opinion, and on a question in which the 
preponderance of opinion, both of the 
present day and of all past time, was so 
overwhelmingly against her. The ordi- 
nance declares that Congress has ex- 
ceeded its just power by laying duties 
on imports, intended for the protection 
of manufactures. This is the opinion 
of South Carolina; and on the strength 
of that opinion she nullifies the laws. 
Yet has the rest of the country no right 
to its opinion also? Is one State to sit 
sole arbitress ? She maintains that those 
laws are plain, deliberate, and palpable 
violations of the Constitution ; that she 
has a sovereign right to decide this mat- 
ter; and that, having so decided, she is 
authorized to resist their execution by 
her own sovereign power; and she de- 
clares that she will resist it, though such 
resistance should shatter the Union into 
atoms. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to dis- 
cuss the propriety of these laws at large; 
but I will ask. How are they shown to 
be thus plainly and palpably unconstitu- 
tional? Have they no countenance at 
all in the Constitution itself ? Are they 
quite new in the history of the govern- 
ment? Are they a sudden and violent 
usurpation on the rights of the States? 
Sir, what will the civilized world say, 
what will posterity say, when they learn 
that similar laws have existed from the 
very foundation of the government, that 
for thirty years the power was never 
questioned, and that no State in the 
Union has more freely and unequivocally 
admitted it than South Carolina herself? 

To lay and collect duties and imposts is 
an express power granted by tlie Constitu- 
tion to Congress. It is, also, an exclusive 
poiver ; for the Constitution as expressly 
prohibits all the States from exercising it 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



301 



themselves. This express and exchi- 
sive power is unlimited in the terms of 
the grant, but is attended witli two spe- 
cific restrictions: fir.st, that all duties and 
imposts shall be equal in all the States; 
second, that no duties shall be laid on 
exports. The power, then, being grant- 
ed, an(i being attended with tliese two 
restrictions, and no more, who is to im- 
pose a third restriction on the general 
words of the grant? If the power to 
lay duties, as known among all other 
nations, and as known in all our history, 
and as it was perfectly understood when 
the Constitution was adopted, includes 
a right of discriminating while exer- 
cising the power, and of laying some 
duties heavier and some lighter, for the 
sake of encouraging our own domestic 
products, what authority is there for 
giving to the words used in the Consti- 
tution a new, narrow, and unusual 
meaning? All the limitations which 
the Constitution intended, it has ex- 
pres.sed ; and what it has left unrestrict- 
ed is as much a part of its will as the 
restraints which it has imposed. 

But these laws, it is said, are uncon- 
stitutional on account of the motive. 
How, Sir, can a law be examined on 
any such ground? How is the motive 
to be ascertained ? One house, or one 
member, may have one motive; the 
other house, or another member, another. 
One motive may operate to-day, and 
another to-morrow. Upon any such 
mode of reasoning as this, one law 
might be unconstitutional now, and 
another law, in exactly the same words, 
perfectly constitutional next year. Be- 
sides, articles may not only be taxed 
for the purpose of protecting home prod- 
ucts, but other articles may be left free, 
for the same purpose and with the same 
moti\e. A law, therefore, would be- 
come unconstitutional from wliat it 
omitted, as well as from what it con- 
tained. Mr. President, it is a settled 
principle, acknowledged in all legisla- 
tive halls, recognized before all tribu- 
nals, sanctioned by the general sense 
and understanding of mankind, that 
there can be no inquiry into the mo- 
tives of those who pass laws, for the 



purpose of determining on their validity. 
If the law be within the fair meaning 
of the words in the grant of the ]V)wer, 
its authority must be admitted until it 
is repealed. This rule, everywhere ac- 
knowledged, everywhere admitted, is so 
universal and so completely without 
exception, that even an allegation of 
fraud, in the majority of a legislature, 
is not allowed as a ground to set aside 
a law. 

But, Sir, is it true that the motive for 
these laws is such as is stated? I think 
not. The great object of all these laws 
is, unquestionably, revenue. If there 
were no occasion for i-evenue, the laws 
would not have been passed; and it is 
notorious that almost the entire revenue 
of the country is derived from them. 
And as yet we have collected none too 
much revenue. The treasury has not 
been more reduced for many years than 
it is at the present moment. All that 
South Carolina can say is, that, in pas.s- 
ing the laws which she now undertakes 
to nullify, particular imported articles 
were taxed, from a regard to the protec- 
tion of certain articles of domestic 7nanu- 
fuc/ure, hie/her than they would have been 
had no such regard been entertained. And 
she insists, that, according to the Con- 
stitution, no such discrimination can be 
allowed ; that duties should be laid for 
revenue, and revenue only; and that it 
is unlawful to have reference, in any 
case, to protection. In otlier words, she 
denies the power of disckimination. 
She does not, and cannot, complain of 
excessive taxation ; on the contrary, she 
professes to be willing to pay any 
amount for revenue, merely as revenue; 
and up to the pre.sent moment there is 
no surplus of revenue. Her grievance, 
then, that plain and palpable violation 
of the Constitution whiili she insists 
has taken place, is simply the exercise of 
tlie power of oisckimination'. Now, 
Sir, is the exercise of tliis power of dis- 
crimination plainly and palpably uncon- 
stitutional? 

I have already said, the power to lay 
duties is given by the Constitution in 
broad and general terms. There is also 
conferred on Congress the whole power 



302 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



of regulating commerce, in another dis- 
tinct provision. Is it clear and palpa- 
ble, Sir, can any man say it is a case 
beyond doubt, that, under these two 
powers, Congress may not justly discrim- 
inate, in laying duties, for the purpose of 
counlervniling the policy of foreign nations, 
or of favorincj our own home productions ? 
Sir, what ought to conclude this ques- 
tion for ever, as it would seem to me, is, 
that the regulation of commerce and the 
imposition of duties are, in all commer- 
cial nations, powers avowedly and con- 
stantly exercised for this very end. 
That imdeniable truth ought to settle 
the question; because the Constitution 
ouaht to be considered, when it uses 
well-known language, as using it in its 
well-known sense. But it is equally im- 
deniable, that it has been, from the veiy 
first, fully believed that this power of 
discrimination was conferred on Con- 
gress; and the Constitution was itself 
recommended, urged upon the people, 
and enthusiastically insisted on in some 
of the States, for that very reason. Not 
that, at that time, the country was ex- 
tensively engaged in manufactures, espe- 
cially of the kinds now existing. But 
the trades and crafts of the seaport 
towns, the business of the artisans and 
manual laborers, — those employments, 
the work in which supplies so great a 
portion of the daily wants of all classes, 
— all these looked to the new Constitu- 
tion as a source of relief fi'om the severe 
distress which followed the war. It 
would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late 
an hour, to go into details on this point ; 
but the truth is as I have stated. The 
papers of the day, the resolutions of 
public meetings, the debates in the con- 
ventions, all that we open our eyes upon 
in the history of the times, prove it. 

Sir, the honorable gentleman from 
South Carolina has referred to two inci- 
dents connected with the proceedings of 
the Convention at Philadelphia, which 
he thinks are evidence to show that the 
power of protecting manufactures by 
laying duties, and by commercial regu- 
lations, was not intended to be given to 
Congress. The first is, as he says, that 
a power to protect mauufactm-es was 



expressly proposed, but not granted. I 
think. Sir, the gentleman is quite mis- 
taken in relation to this part of the pro- 
ceedings of the Convention. The whole 
history of the occurrence to which he 
alludes is simply this. Towards the 
conclusion of the Convention, after the 
provisions of the Constitution had been 
mainly agreed upon, after the power to 
lay duties and the power to regulate 
commerce had both been granted, a long- 
list of propositions was made and re- 
ferred to the committee, containing vari- 
ous miscellaneous powers, some or all of 
which it was thought might be properly 
vested in Congress. Among these was 
a power to establish a university; to 
grant charters of incorporation ; to reg- 
ulate stage-coaches on the post-roads; 
and also the power to which the gentle- 
man refers, and which is expressed in. 
these words : "To establish public in- 
stitutions, rewards, and immunities, for 
the promotion of agi-iculture, commerce, 
trades, and manufactiu'es." The com- 
mittee made no report on this or various 
other propositions in the same list. But 
the only inference from this omission is, 
that neither the committee nor the Con- 
vention thought it proper to authorize 
Congress "to establish public institu- 
tions, rewards, and immunities," for the 
promotion of manufactures, and other 
interests. The Convention supposed it 
had done enough, — at any rate, it had 
done all it intended, — when it had 
given to Congress, in general terms, 
the power to lay imposts and the power 
to regulate trade. It is not to be argued, 
from its omission to give more, that it 
meant to take back what it had already 
given. It had given the impost power ; 
it had given the regulation of trade ; and 
it did not deem it necessary to give the 
further and distinct power of establish- 
ing public institutions. 

The other fact. Sir, on which the gen- 
tleman relies, is the declaration of Mr. 
Martin to the legislature of Maryland. 
The gentleman supposes INIr. Martin to 
have urged against the Constitution, 
that it did not contain the power of pro- 
tection. But if the gentleman will look 
again at what Mr. Martin said, he will 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



303 



find, I think, that what ]\Ir. Martin com- 
])Iainedof was, that the Constitution, by 

its proliibitions on the States, had taken 
away from tlie States themselves the 
power of protecting their own manufac- 
tures by duties on imports. This is un- 
doubtedly true ; but 1 find no expression 
of Mr. Martin intimating that the Con- 
stitution had not conferred on Congress 
llie same power which it had thus taken 
iVom the States. 

But, Sir, let us go to the first Con- 
gress ; let us look in upon this and the 
other house, at the first session of their 
organization. 

We see, in both houses, men distin- 
giiished among the framers, friends, and 
advocates of the Constitution. "We see 
in both, those who had drawn, discussed, 
and matured the instrument in the Con- 
vention, explained and defended it be- 
fore the people, and were now elected 
members of Congress, to put the new 
government into jnotion, and to carry 
the powers of the Constitution into bene- 
ficial execution. At the head of the gov- 
ernment was Washington himself, who 
had been President of the Convention ; 
and in his cabinet were others most 
thoroughly acquainted with the history 
of the Constitution, and distinguished 
for the part taken in its discussion. If 
these persons were not acquainted with 
the meaning of the Constitution, if they 
did not luiderstand the work of their 
own hands, who can understand it, or 
who shall now interpret it to us? 

Sir, the volume which records the pro- 
ceedings and debates of the first session 
of the House of Representatives lies 
before me. I open it, and I find that, 
having provided for the administration 
of the necessary oaths, the very first 
measure proposed for consideration is, 
the laying of imposts ; and in the very 
first committee of the whole into which 
the House of Representatives ever re- 
solved itself, on this its earliest subject, 
and in this its very first debate, the duty 
of so laying the imposts as to encourage 
manufactures was advanced and en- 
larged upon by almost everj' speaker, 
and doubted or denied by none. The 
first gentleman who suggests this as the 



clear duty of Congress, and a.s an object 
necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitz- 
sinu)ns, of Pennsylvania; the second, 
Mr. White, of V'ikuini.\; the thii-d, Mr. 
Tucker, of South Carolina. 

But the great leader, Sir, on tliis oc- 
casion, was Mr. Madison. Was he like- 
ly to know the intentions of the Con- 
vention and the people? Was he likely 
to understand the Constitution? At the 
second sitting of the committee, Mr. 
Madison explained his own opinions 
of the duty of Congress, fully and ex- 
plicitly. I must not detain you. Sir, 
with more than a few sliort extracts 
from these opinions, l>ut they are such 
as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. 
" The States," says he, " that are mo.st 
advanced in population, and ripe for 
manufactures, ought to have their par- 
ticular interest attended to, in some de- 
gree. While these States retained the 
power of making regulations of trade, 
tiiey had the power to cherish such insti- 
tutions. By adopting the present Consti- 
tution, thev have thrown the exercise of 
this power into other hands ; they must 
have done this with an expectation that 
those interests would not be neglected 
here." In another report of the same 
speech, Mr. Madison is represented as 
using still stronger language ; as saying 
that, the Constitution having taken this 
power away from the States and con- 
ferred it on Congress, it would be a 
fraud on the States and on the people 
were Congress to refuse to exercise it. 

Mr. Madison argues. Sir, on this early 
and interesting occasion, very justly and 
liberally, in favor of the general ]>rin- 
ciples of unrestricted commerce. But he 
argues, also, with equal force and clear- 
ness, for certain impf>rtant excejjtions to 
these general principles. The first. Sir, 
respects those manufactures which had 
been brought forward under encourage- 
ment by the State govornmonts. " It 
would be cruel," says Mr. .Madison, "to 
neglect them, and to divert their indus- 
try into other chann<'ls; for it is not 
possible for the hand of man to shift 
from one employment to another with- 
out being injured by the change." 
Again: " There may be some manufac- 



304 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 



tures which, being once formed, can ad- 
vance towards perfection without any- 
adventitious aid; while others, for want 
of the fostering hand of government, 
will be unable to go on at all. Legis- 
lative provision, therefore, will be neces- 
sary to collect the proper objects for this 
purpose ; and this will form another ex- 
ception to my general principle." And 
again: "The jiext exception that occurs 
is one on which great stress is laid by 
some well-informed men, and this with 
great plausibility ; that each nation 
should have, within itself, the means 
of defence, independent of foreign sup- 
plies ; that, in whatever relates to the 
operations of war, no State ought to de- 
pend upon a precarious supply from any 
part of the world. There may be some 
truth in this remark ; and therefore it is 
proper for legislative attention." 

In the same debate. Sir, Mr. Burk, 
from South Carolina, supported a 
duty on hemp, for the express purpose 
of encouraging its growth on the strong 
lands of South Carolina. " Cotton," he 
said, "was also in contemplation among 
them, and, if good seed could be pro- 
cured, he hoped might succeed." After- 
wards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, its 
culture was protected, and it did suc- 
ceed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished 
member from the same State, ob- 
served: " It has been said, and justly, 
that the States which adopted this Con- 
stitution expected its administration 
would be conducted with a favora- 
ble hand. The manufactui'ing States 
wished the encouragement of manufac- 
tures, the maritime States the encour- 
agement of ship-building, and the agri- 
cultural States the encom-agement of 
agriculture." 

Sir, I will detain the Senate by read- 
ing no more extracts from these debates. 
I have already shown a majority of the 
members of South Carolina, in this 
very first session, acknowledging this 
power of protection, voting for its exer- 
cise, and proposing its extension to their 
own products. Similar propositions came 
from Virginia; and, indeed. Sir, in the 
whole debate, at whatever page you open 
the volume, you find the power admitted, 



and you find it applied to the protection 
of particular articles, or not applied, ac- 
cording to the discretion of CongTess. 
No man denied the power, no man 
doubted it; the only questions were, in 
regard to the several articles proposed 
to be taxed, whether they were fit sub- 
jects for protection, and what the amount 
of that protection ought to be. Will 
gentlemen, Sir, now answer the argu- 
ment drawn from these proceedings of 
the first Congress ? Will they under- 
take to deny that that CongTess did act 
on the avowed principle of protection ? 
Or, if they admit it, will they tell us how 
those who framed the Constitution fell, 
thus early, into this great mistake about 
its meaning ? Will they tell us how it 
should happen that they had so soon for- 
gotten their own sentiments and their 
own purposes ? I confess I have seen 
no answer to this argument, nor any 
respectable attempt to answer it. And, 
Sir, how did this debate terminate ? 
What law was passed ? There it stands, 
Sir, among the statutes, the second law 
in the book. It has a preamble, and that 
preamble expressly recites, that the du- 
ties which it imjjoses are laid ' ' for the 
support of govei'nment, for the discharge 
of the debts of the United States, and 
the encouragement and protection of manu- 
factures." Until, Sir, this early legisla- 
tion, thus coeval with the Constitution 
itself, thus full and explicit, can be ex- 
plained away, no man can doubt of the 
meaning of that instrument in this re- 
spect. 

jVIi". President, this power of discrivri- 
nation, thus admitted, avowed, and prac- 
tised upon in the first revenue act, has 
never been denied or doubted until with- 
in a few years past. It was not at all 
doubted in 1816, when it became neces- 
sary to adjust the revenue to a state of 
peace. On the contrary, the power was 
then exercised, not without opposition 
as to its expediency, but, as far as I re- 
member or have understood, without the 
slightest opposition founded on any sup- 
posed want of constitutional authority. 
Certainly, South Carolina did not 
doubt it. The tariff of 1816 was intro- 
duced, carried through, and established, 



BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 



305 



under the lead of South Carolina. Even 
the minimum policy is of South Carolina 
origin. The honorable gentleman him- 
self supported, and ably supported, the 
tariff of 181G. He has informed us, Sir. 
that his speech on that occasion was sud- 
den and off-hand, he being called up by 
the request of a friend. I am sure the 
gentleman so remembers it, and that it 
was so; but there is, nevertheless, much 
method, arrangement, and clear exposi- 
tion in that extempore speech. It is 
very able, very, very much to the point, 
and very decisive. And in another 
speech, delivered two months earlier, on 
the proposition to repeal the internal 
taxes, the honorable gentleman had 
touched the same subject, and had de- 
clared " that a certain encouragement 
ought to he extended at leant to our woollen 
and cotton manufactures." I do not quote 
these speeches. Sir, for the purpose of 
showing that the honorable gentleman 
has changed his opinion: my object is 
other and higher. I do it for the sake 
of saying that that cannot be so plainly 
and palpably unconstitutional as to war- 
rant resistance to law, nullification, and 
revolution, which the honorable gentle- 
man and his friends have heretofore 
agreed to and acted upon without doubt 
and without hesitation. Sir, it is no 
answer to say that the tariff of 1816 was 
a revenue bill. So are they all revenue 
bills. The point is, and the trutli is, 
that the tariff of 1816, like the rest, did 
discriminate : it did distinguish one arti- 
cle from another; it did lay duties for 
protection. Look to the case of coarse 
cottons under the minimum calculation: 
the duty on these was from sixty to 
eighty per cent. Something beside rev- 
enue, certainly, was intended in this; 
and, in fact, the law cut up our whole 
commerce with India in that article. 

It is, Sir, only within a few years that 
Carolina has denied the constitutionality 
of these protective laws. The gentleman 
himself has narrated to us the true his- 
tory of her proceedings on this point. 
He says, that, after the passing of the law 
of 1828, despairing then of being able to 
abolish the system of protection, polit- 
ical men went forth among the people, 



and set up the doctrine that the system 
was unconstitutional. '■'■And (he pco- 
])le," says the honorable gentleman, ^'re- 
ceived the doctrine.'" This, I believe, is 
true. Sir. The people did tiien receive 
the doctrine ; they had never entertained 
it before. Down to that ])eriod, the 
constitutionality of tli(;se laws had been 
no more doubted in South Carolina than 
elsewhere. And I suspect it is true. Sir, 
and I deem it a great misfortune, that, 
to the present moment, a great jiortion 
of the people of the State have never yet 
seen more than one side of the argu- 
ment. I believe that thousands of hon- 
est men are involved in scenes now 
passing, led away by one-sided views of 
the question, and following their leaders 
by the impulses of an unlimited confi- 
dence. Depend upon it. Sir, if we can 
avoid the shock of arms, a day for recon- 
sideration and reflection will come ; truth 
and reason will act with their accus- 
tomed force, and the ])ublic opinion of 
South Carolina will be restored to its 
usual constitutional and patriotic tone. 

But, Sir, I hold South Carolina to her 
ancient, her cool, her uninfluenced, her 
deliberate opinions. I hold her to her 
own admissions, nay, to her own claims 
and pretensions, in 1789, in the first 
Congress, and to her acknowledgments 
and avowed sentiments through a long 
series of succeeding years. I hold her 
to the principles on which she led Con- 
gress to act in 1816; or, if she have 
changed her own opinions, I claim some 
respect for those who still retain the 
same opinions. I say she is precluded 
from asserting that doctrines, wiiich she 
has herself so long and so ably sustained, 
are plain, paljiable, and dangerous vio- 
lations of the Constitution. 

I\Ir. President, if the friends of nulli- 
fication should be able to ]irt)j)agate tlieir 
opinions, and give them practical etYect, 
they would, in my judgment, prove 
themselves the most skilful " arcliitccts 
of ruin," the most elT(!otual extinguisii- 
ers of high-raised expectation, the great- 
est blasters of human hojtes, (hat any age 
has produced. Tln'y would stand up to 
proclaim, in tones which would pierce 
the ears of half the human race, tliat the 



20 



306 



THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT, ETC. 



last great experiment of representative 
government had failed. They would 
send forth sounds, at the hearing of 
■which the doctrine of the divine right 
of kings would feel, even in its grave, a 
returning sensation of vitality and resus- 
eitation. Millions of eyes, of those who 
now feed their inherent love of liberty 
on the success of the American example, 
would turn away froin beholding our 
dismemberment, and find no place on 
earth whereon to rest their gratified 
sight. Amidst the incantations and or- 
gies of nullification, secession, disunion, 
and revolution, would be celebrated the 
funeral rites of constitutional and repub- 
lican liberty. 

But, Sir, if the government do its 
duty, if it act with firmness and with 
moderation, these opinions cannot pre- 
vail. Be assured. Sir, be assured, that, 
among the political sentiments of this 
people, the love of union is still upper- 
most. They will stand fast by the Con- 
stitution, and by those who defend it. 
I rely on no temporary expedients, on no 
political combination : but I rely on the 
true American feeling, the genuine patri- 
otism of the people, and the imperative 
decision of the public voice. Disorder 
and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes 
of commotion and contest are threat- 
ened, and perhaps may come. With my 
whole heart, I pray for the continuance 
of the domestic peace and quiet of the 
country. I desire, most ardently, the 
restoration of affection and harmony to 
all its parts. I desire that every citizen 



of the whole country may look to this 
government with no other sentiments 
than those of gTateful respect and at- 
tachment. But I cannot yield even to 
kind feelings the cause of the Constitu- 
tion, the true glory of the country, and 
the great trust which we hold in our 
hands for succeeding ages. If the Con- 
stitution cannot be maintained without 
meeting these scenes of commotion and 
contest, however unwelcome, they must 
come. We cannot, we must not, we dare 
not, omit to do that which, in oui* judg- 
ment, the safety of the Union requires. 
Xot regardless of consequences, we must 
yet meet consequences; seeing the haz- 
ards which surround the discharge of 
public duty, it must yet be discharged. 
For myself. Sir, I shun no responsibility 
justly devolving on me, here or else- 
where, in attempting to maintain the 
cause. I am bound to it by indissoluble 
ties of affection and duty, and I shall 
cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its 
fate. I am ready to perform my own 
appropriate part, whenever and wherever 
the occasion may call on me, and to take 
my chance among those upon whom 
blows may fall first and fall thickest. 
I shall exert every faculty I possess in 
aiding to prevent the Constitution from 
being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; 
and even should I see it fall, I will still, 
with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest 
as ever issued from human lips, and 
with fidelity and zeal which nothing 
shall extinguish, call on the PEOPLE 
to come to its rescue. 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC DINNER GIVEN BY A LARGE NUMBER 
OF CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, IN HONOR OF MR. WEBSTER, ON MARCH 
10th, 1831. 



[In February, 18.31, several distinguished 
gentlemen of the city of New York, in be- 
half of themselves and a large number of 
other citizens, invited Mr. Webster to a pub- 
lic dinner, as a mark of their respect for 
tile value and success of his efforts, in the 
preceding session of Congress, in defence 
of the Constitution of the United States. 
His speech in reply to Mr. Hayne (con- 
tained in an earlier part of this volume), 
which, by that time, had been circulated 
and read through the country to a greater 
extent than any speech ever before delivered 
in Congress, was the particular effort which 
led to this invitation. 

The dinner took place at the City Hotel, 
on the 10th of March, and was attended by 
a very large assembly. 

Chancellor Kent presided, and, in propos- 
ing to the company the health of their guest, 
made the following remarks : — 

" New Eni;land has been long fruitful in 
great men, tlie necessary consequence of the 
admirable discipline of her institutions; and we 
are tills day honored with the presence of one 
of those ciierished objects of her attachment 
and pride, who has an undoubted and |)eculiar 
title to our regard. It is a plain truth, that he 
who defends the constitution of his country by 
his wisdom in council is entitled to share her 
gratitude with those who protect it by valor in 
the Held. Peace has its victories as well as war. 
We all recollect a late memorable occasion, when 
the exalted talents and enlightened patriotism 
of the gentleman to whom I have alluded were 
e.xortcd in the support of our national Union 
and the sound interpretation of its charter. 

"If there be anyone jwlitical precept. pre- 
eminent ahove all others and acknowledged by 
all, it is that which dictates the absolute neces- 
sity of a union of the .States under one govern- 
ment, and that government clotlied with those 
attributes and powers with which the existing 
( 'onstitution has invested it. We arc indebted, 
under Providence, to the operation and iiiHuence 
of the powers of that Constitution for our na- 
tional honor abroad and for luiexampled jiros- 
perity at home. Its future stability depends 
upon the lirm support and due e.xercise of its 



legitimate powers in all their branches. A 
tendency to disunion, to anarchy among the 
mendjers rather than to tyranny in the head, 
has been heretofore the melancholy fate of all 
the federal governments of aTicient and modern 
Europe. Our Union and national ("onstitution 
were formed, as we have hitherto been led to 
believe, under better auspices and with improved 
wisdom. But there was a deadly |)rinciple of 
disease inherent in the .system. The assum|)- 
tion by any member of the Union of the right 
to question and resist, or ainud. as its own juclg- 
ment slumld dictate, either the laws of Coiif;ress, 
or the treaties, or the decisions of the federal 
courts, or the mandates of the executive power, 
duly made and promulgated as the ('onstitution 
prescribes, was a most dangerous assum|)lion 
of power, leading to collision an<l the d<'struc- 
tion of the system. And if, contrary to all our 
expectations, we should hereafter fail in the 
grand experiment of a confederate government 
extending over some of the fairest purtions of 
this continent, and destined to act, at the same 
time, with efficiency and harmony, we should 
most grievously disappoint th'- hopes of man- 
kind, and blast for ever the fruits of the Revo- 
lution. 

" But, happily for us, the refutation of such 
dangerous pretensions, on the occasion refern'd 
to, was signal and complete. The false images 
and delusive theories wliich had perplexed the 
thoughts and disturbed the judgments of men, 
were then dissipated in like manner as spectR-s 
disappear at the rising of the sun. The iiies- * 
timable value of the Union, and the true princi- 
ples of the Constitution, were explained liy clear 
and accurate reas(inint;s, and enfon-ecl by pa- 
thetic and eloquent illustrations. The result 
was the more auspicious, as the lienMical doc- 
trines which were then fairly reasoned down 
had been advanced by a very respectable por- 
tion of the Union, anil urged on the llixirof tiio 
Senate by the polished mind, manly zeal, and 
honored name of a distinguished mend)er from 
the South. 

" The consequences of that discussion have 
been exlremelv benelicial. It furnetl the atten- 
tion of the i)ublic to the great doctrines i.f na- 
tional rights and national union. Con^tilutionul 
law ceased to remain wrapped up in the breasl.'i, 
and taught onlv by the respmises. of the livinff 
oracles of the law'. Socrates was said to have 



308 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



drawn down philosophy from the skies, and 
scattered it anionfj the schools. It may with 
equal truth be said, that constitutional law, by 
means of those senatorial discussions and the 
master ij;enius that guided them, was rescued 
from the archives of our tribunals and the 
libraries of lawyers, and placed under the eye, 
and submitted "to the judgment, of the Ameri- 
can peojile. Their verdict is with us, and from 
it there lies no cippeaL'^ 

As soon as the immense cheering and 
acclamations with which this address and 
toast were received had subsided, Mr. Web- 
ster rose and addressed the company as 
follows.] 

I OWE the honor of this occasion, 
Gentlemen, to your patriotic and affec- 
tionate attachment to the Constitution 
of our country. For an effort, well in- 
tended, however otherwise of unpretend- 
ing character, made in the discharge of 
public duty, and designed to maintain 
the Constitution and vindicate its just 
powers, you have been pleased to tender 
me this token of your respect. It would 
be idle affectation to deny that it gives 
me singular gratification. Every public 
man must naturally desire the approba- 
tion of his fellow-citizens; and though 
it may be supposed that T should be 
anxious, in the first place, not to disap- 
point the expectations of those whose 
immediate representative I am, it is not 
possible but that I should feel, neverthe- 
less, the high value of such a mark of 
esteem as is here offered. But, Gentle- 
men, I am conscious that the main pur- 
pose of this occasion is higher than mere 
manifestation of personal regard. It is 
to evince your devotion to the Constitu- 
tion, your sense of its transcendent value, 
and your just alarm at whatever threat- 
ens to weaken its proper authority, or 
endanger its existence. 

Gentlemen, this could hardly be other- 
wise. It would be strange, indeed, if 
the members of this vast commercial 
community should not be first and fore- 
most to rally for the Constitution, when- 
ever opinions and doctrines are advanced 
hostile to its principles. Where sooner 
than here, where louder than here, may 
we expect a patriotic voice to be raised, 
when the union of the States is threat- 
ened? In this great emporium, at this 
central point of the united commerce of 



the United States, of all places, we may 
expect the warmest, the most determined 
and universal feeling of attachment to 
the national government. Gentlemen, 
no one can estimate more highly than I 
do the natural advantages of your city. 
No one entertains a higher opinion than 
myself, also, of that spirit of wise and 
liberal policy, which has actuated the 
government of your own gi-eat State in 
the accomplishment of high objects, im- 
portant to the growth and jprosperity 
both of the State and the city. But all 
these local advantages, and all this en- 
lightened state policy, could never have 
made your city what it now is, without 
the aid and protection of a general gov- 
ernment, extending over all the States, 
and establishing for all a common and 
uniform system of commercial regula- 
tion. Without national character, with- 
out public credit, without systematic 
finance, without uniformity of commer- 
cial laws, all other advantages possessed 
by this city would have decayed and 
perished, like unripe fruit. A general 
government was, for years before it was 
instituted, the great object of desire to 
the inhabitants of this city. New York, 
at a very early day, was conscious of her 
local advantages for commerce ; she saw 
her destiny, and was eager to embrace 
it ; but nothing else than a general gov- 
ernment could make free her path before 
her, and set her forward on her brilliant 
career. She early saw all this, and to 
the accomplishment of this great and in- 
dispensable object she bent every faculty, 
and exerted every effort. She was not 
mistaken. She formed no false judg- 
ment. At the moment of the adoption 
of the Constitution, New Y^ork was the 
cajjital of one State, and contained thirty- 
two or three thousand people. It now 
contains more than two hundred thou- 
sand people, and is justly regarded as 
the commercial capital, not only of all 
the United States, but of the whole con- 
tinent also, from the pole to the South 
Sea. Every page of her history, for the 
last forty years, bears high and irresisti- 
ble testimony to the benefits and bless- 
ings of the general government. Her 
astonishing growth is referred to, and 



rUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



309 



quoted, all the world over, as one of the 
most striking proofs of the effects of our 
Federal Union. To suppose her now to 
be easy and indiiferent, when notions 
are advanced tending to its dissolution, 
would be to suppose her equally forget- 
ful of the past and blind to tlie present, 
alike ignorant of her own history and 
her own Interest, metamorphosed, from 
all that she has been, into a being tired 
of its prosperity, sick of its own growth 
and greatness, and infatuated for its own 
destruction. Every blow aimed at the 
union of the States strikes on the tender- 
est nerve of her interest and her happi- 
ness. To bring the Union into debate 
is to bring her own future prosperity 
into debate also. To speak of arresting 
the laws of the Union, of interposing 
State power in matters of commerce and 
revenue, of weakening the full and just 
authority of the general government, 
would be, in regard to this city, but 
another mode of speaking of commer- 
cial ruin, of abandoned wharfs, of va- 
cated houses, of diminished and dispers- 
ing population, of bankrupt merchants, 
of mechanics without employment, and 
laborers without bread. The growth of 
this city and the Constitution of the 
United States are coevals and contem- 
poraries. They began together, they 
have flourished together, and if rash- 
ness and folly destroy one, the other 
will follow it to the tomb. 

Gentlemen, it is true, indeed, that the 
growth of this city is extraordinary, and 
almost unexampled. It is now, I be- 
lieve, sixteen or seventeen years since I 
first saw it. Within that comparatively 
short period, it has addf^d to its number 
three times the whole amount of its 
population when the Constitution was 
adopted. Of all things having power 
to check this prosperity, of all things 
potent to blight and blast it, of all 
things capable of compelling this city 
to recede as fast as she has advanced, 
a disturbed government, an enfeebled 
public authority, a broken or a weak- 
ened union of the States, would be most 
elficacious. This would be cause efii- 
citjut enough. Every thing (^Ise, in the 
common fortune of communities, slie 



may hope to resist or to prevent; but 
this would be fatal as the arrow of 
death. 

Gentlemen, you have personal recol- 
lections and associations, connected with 
the establishment and adoption of the 
Constitution, which are necessarily called 
up on an occasion like this. Jt is im- 
possible to forget the prominent agency 
exercised by eminent citizens of your 
own, in regard to that great measure. 
Those great men are now recorded 
among the illustrious dead; but they 
have left names never to be forgotten, 
and never to be remembered without 
respect and veneration. Least of all 
can they be forgotten by you, when as- 
sembled here for the purpose of signify- 
ing your attachment to the Constitution, 
and your sense of its inestimable impor- 
tance to the happiness of the people. 

I should do violence to my own feel- 
ings, Gentlemen, I tliink I should offend 
yours, if 1 omitted respectful mention 
of distiu<ruished names yet fresh in your 
recollections. How can I stand liere, to 
speak of the Constitution of the United 
States, of the wisdom of its provisions, 
of the difficulties attending its adoption, 
of the evils from which it rescued the 
country, and of the prosperity and power 
to which it has raised it, and yet pay no 
tribute to those who were highly in- 
strumental in accomplishing the work? 
While we are here to rejoice that it yet 
stands firm and strong, wliile we con- 
gratulate one another that we live under 
its benign influence, and cherish hopes 
of its long duration, we cannot forget 
who they were that, in the day of our 
national infancy, in the times of de- 
spondency and despair, mainly a.ssisted 
to work out our deliverance. I should 
feel that I was unfailliful to the strong 
recollections which tlie occasion presses 
upon us, that I was not true to grati- 
tude, not true to jiatriotism, not true to 
tlie living or the dead, not true to your 
feelings or my own, if I should forbear 
to make mention of Ai.i:x.\ndk.i: Ham- 
ilton. 

Coming from the military service of 
the country yet a youth, but with knowl- 
edge and maturity, even in civil ulTairH, 



310 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



far beyond his years, he made this city 
the place of his adoption ; and he gave 
the whole powers of his mind to the 
contemplation of the weak and distracted 
condition of the country. Daily increas- 
ing in acquaintance and confidence with 
the people of iSTew York, he saw, what 
they also saw, the absolute necessity of 
some closer bond of union for the States. 
This was the great object of desire. 
He never appears to have lost sight of 
it, but was found in the lead whenever 
any tiling was to be attempted for its 
accomplishment. One experiment after 
another, as is well known, was tried, 
and all failed. The States were ur- 
gently called on to confer such further 
powers on the old Congress as would 
enable it to redeem the public faith, or 
to adopt, themselves, some general and 
common principle of commercial regula- 
tion. But the States had not agreed, 
and were not likely to agree. Tn this 
posture of affairs, so full of public diffi- 
culty and public distress, commissioners 
from five or six of the States met, on 
the request of Virginia, at Annapolis, 
in September, 1786. The precise ob- 
ject of their appointment was to take 
into consideration the trade of the Unit- 
ed States; to examine the relative situ- 
ations and ti'ade of the several States; 
and to consider how far a uniform sys- 
tem of commercial regulations was ne- 
cessary to their common interest and 
permanent harmony. Mr. Hamilton 
was one of these commissioners; and I 
have understood, though I cannot assert 
the fact, that their report was drawn by 
him. His associate from tins State 
was the venerable Judge Benson, who 
has lived long, and still lives, to see the 
happy results of the counsels which origi- 
nated in this meeting. Of its mem- 
bers, he and Mr. Madison are, I believe, 
now the only survivors. These commis- 
sioners recommended, what took place 
the next year, a general Convention of 
all the States, to take into serious de- 
liberation the condition of the country, 
and devise such provisions as should 
render the constitution of the federal 
government adequate to the exigencies 
of the Union. I need not i-emind you. 



that of this Convention Mr. Hamilton 
was an active and efficient member. 
The Constitution was framed, and sub- 
mitted to the country. And then an- 
other great work was to be undertaken. 
The Constitution would naturally find, 
and did find, enemies and opposers. 
Objections to it were numerous, and 
powerful, and spirited. They were to 
he answered; and they were effectually 
answered. The writers of the numbers 
of the Federalist, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. 
Madison, and Mr. Jay, so greatly dis- 
tinguished themselves in their discus- 
sions of the Constitution, that those 
numbers are generally received as im- 
portant commentaries on the text, and 
accurate expositions, in general, of its 
objects and purposes. Those papers 
were all written and published in this 
city. Mr. Hamilton was elected one of 
the distinguished delegation from the 
city to the State Convention at Pough- 
keepsie, called to ratify the new Consti- 
tution. Its debates are published. Mr. 
Hamilton appears to have exerted, on 
this occasion, to the utmost, every power 
and faculty of his mind. 

The whole question was likely to de- 
pend on the decision of New York. He 
felt the full importance of the crisis; 
and the reports of his speeches, imper- 
fect as they probably are, are yet lasting 
monuments to his genius and patriotism. 
He saw at last his hopes fulfilled; he 
saw the Constitution adopted, and the 
government under it established and or- 
ganized. The discerning eye of Wash- 
ington immediately called him to that 
post, which was far the most important 
in the administration of the new system. 
He was made Secretary of the Treasury ; 
and how he fulfilled the duties of such a 
place, at such a time, the whole country 
perceived with delight and the whole 
world saw with admiration. He smote 
the rock of the national resources, and 
abundant streams of revenue gushed 
forth. He touched the dead corpse of 
the Public Credit, and it sprung upon 
its feet. The fabled birth of Minerva, 
from the brain of Jove, was hardly more 
sudden or more perfect than the finan- 
cial system of the United States, as it 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



311 



burst forth from the conceptions of 
Alexander Hamilton. 

Your recollections, (xentlenien, your 
respect, and your affections, all conspire 
to bring before you, at such a time as 
this, anotlier great man, now too num- 
bered with the dead. I mean the pure, 
the disinterested, the patriotic John 
Jay. His character is a brilliant jewel 
in the sacred treasures of national repu- 
tation. Leaving his profession at an 
early period, yet not before he had sin- 
gularly distinguished himself in it, his 
whole life, from the commencement of 
the Revolution until his final retirement, 
was a life of public service. A mem- 
ber of the fir.st Congress, he was the 
author of that political paper which is 
generally acknowledged to stand first 
among the incomparable productions of 
that body ; ' productions which called 
forth that decisive strain of commenda- 
tion from the great Lord Chatham, in 
which he pronounced them not inferior 
to the finest productions of the master 
states of the world. Mr. Jay had been 
abroad, and he had also been long in- 
trusted with the difficult duties of our 
foreign correspondence at home. He 
had seen and felt, in the fullest measure 
and to the greatest po.ssible extent, the 
difficulty of conducting our foreign af- 
fairs honorably and usefully, without 
a stronger and more perfect domestic 
union. Though not a member of the 
Convention which framed the Constitu- 
tion, he was yet present while it was in 
session, and looked anxiously for its re- 
sult. By the choice of this city, he had 
a seat in the State Convention, and took 
an active and zealous part for the adop- 
tion of the Constitution. On the organ- 
ization of the new government, he was 
selected by Washington to be the first 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
the United States; and surely the high 
and most responsible duties of that sta- 
tion could not have been trusted to abler 
or safer hands. It is the duty of that 
tribunal, one of equal importance and 
delicacy, to decide con.stitutional ques- 
tions, occasionally arising on State laws. 
The general learning and ability, and 
1 Address to the People of Great Britain. 



especially the prudence, the mildiie8.s, 
and the firmness of his character, emi- 
nently fitted Mr. Jay to be the liead of 
such a court. When the spotless ermine 
of the judicial robe fell on John .Jay, it 
touched nothing less spotless than itself. 
These eminent men, Gentlemen, the 
contemporaries of some of you, known 
to most, and revered by all, were so con- 
spicuous in the framing and adopting of 
the Constitution, and called so early to 
important stations under it, that a trib- 
ute, better, indeed, than I have given, 
or am able to give, seemed due to them 
from us, on this occasion. 

There was yet anothor, of whom men- 
tion is to be made. In the llevolution- 
aiy history of the country, the name of 
Chancellor Livingston became early 
prominent. He was a member of that 
Congress which declared Independence ; 
and a member, too, of the committee 
which drew and reported the immortal 
Declaration. At the jjeriod of the a<lop- 
tion of the Constitution, he was its firm 
friend and able advocate. He was a 
member of the State Convention, being 
one of that list of distinguished and 
gifted men who represented this city 
in that body; and he threw the whole 
weight of his talents and influence into 
the doubtful scale of the Constitution. 

Gentlemen, as connected with the 
Constitution, you have also local recol- 
lections which must bind it still closer 
to your attachment and affection. It 
commenced its being and its blessings 
here. It was in this city, in the mid-st 
of friends, anxious, hopeful, and de- 
voted, that the new government started 
in its course. To us, GentliMuen, who 
are younger, it has come down by tradi- 
tion; but some around ine are oM enough 
to have witnessed, and did witness, the 
interesting scene of the first inaugura- 
tion. Tliey rememl)er wliat voices of 
gratified patriotism, what shouts of en- 
thusiastic hope, what acclamations rent 
the air, how many eyes were suffused 
with tears of joy, how cordially each 
man pres.sed the hand of liim who was 
next to him, when, standing in the open 
air, in the centre of the city, in the view 
of assembled thousands, the first Tresi- 



312 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



dent of the United States was heard 
solemnly to pronounce the words of his 
official oath, repeating them from the 
lips of Chancellor Livingston. You 
then thought, Gentlemen, that the 
great work of the Revolution was ac- 
complished. You then felt that you had 
a government; that the United States 
were then, indeed, united. Every be- 
nignant star seemed to shed its selectest 
influence on that auspicious hour. Here 
were heroes of the Revolution ; here were 
sages of the Convention ; here were 
minds, disciplined and schooled in all 
the various foi'tunes of the country, act- 
ing now in several relations, but all co- 
operating to the same great end, the 
successful administration of the new 
and untried Constitution. And he, — 
how shall I speak of him? — he was at 
the head, who was already first in war, 
who was already first in the hearts of 
his countrymen, and who was now shown 
also, by the unanimous suffrage of the 
country, to be first in peace. 

Gentlemen, how gloriously have the 
hopes then indulged been fulfilled! 
Whose expectation was then so san- 
guine, I may almost ask, whose imagi- 
nation then so extravagant, as to run 
forward, and contemplate as probable, 
the one half of what has been accom- 
plished in forty years? "VVho among 
you can go back to 1789, and see what 
this city, and this country, too, then 
were; and, beholding what they now 
are, can be ready to consent that the 
Constitution of the United States shall 
be weakened, — dishonored, — nullified "? 

Gentlemen, before I leave these pleas- 
ant recollections, I feel it an irresistible 
impulse of duty to pay a tribute of re- 
spect to another distinguished person, 
not, indeed, a fellow-citizen of your 
own, but associated with those I have 
already mentioned in important labors, 
and an early and indefatigable friend 
and advocate in the great cause of the 
Constitution. I refer to Mr. Madison. 
I am aware. Gentlemen, that a tribute 
of regard from me to him is of little 
importance ; but if it shall receive your 
approbation and sanction, it will be- 
come of value. Mr. Madison, thanks 



to a kind Providence, is yet among the 
living, and there is certainly no other 
individual living, to whom the country 
is so much indebted for the blessings of 
the Constitution. He was one of the 
commissioners who met at Annapolis, 
in 1780, to which meeting I have al- 
ready referred, and which, to the great 
credit of Virginia, had its origin in a 
proceeding of that State. He was a 
member of the Convention of 1787, and 
of that of Virginia in the following 
year. He was thus intimately acquaint- 
ed with the whole progress of the for- 
mation of the Constitution, from its 
very first step to its final adoption. If 
ever man had the means of understand- 
ing a written instrument, I\Ir. Madison 
has the means of understanding the Con- 
stitution. If it be possible to know what 
was designed by it, he can tell us. It 
was in this city, that, in conjunction 
with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jay, he 
■^Tote the numbers of the Federalist; 
and it was in this city that he com- 
menced his brilliant career under the 
new Constitution, having been elected 
into the House of Representatives of 
the first Congress. The recorded votes 
and debates of those times show his ac- 
tive and efficient agency in every im- 
portant measure of that Congress. The 
necessary organization of the govern- 
ment, the arrangement of the depart- 
ments, and especially the paramount 
subject of revenue, engaged his atten- 
tion, and divided his labors. 

The legislative history of the first two 
or three years of the government is full 
of instruction. It presents, in striking 
light, the evils intended to be remedied 
by the Constitution, and the provisions 
which were deemed essential to the 
remedy of those evils. It exhibits the 
country, in the moment of its change 
from a weak and ill-defined confederacy 
of States, into a general, efficient, but 
still restrained and limited government. 
It shows the first working of our pe- 
culiar system, moved, as it then was, 
by master hands. 

Gentlemen, for one, I confess I like 
to dwell on this part of our history. It 
is good for us to be here. It is good for 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



313 



us to study the situation of the country 
at this period, to survey its difficulties, 
to look at the conduct of its public men, 
to see how they struggled with obstacles,, 
real and formidable, ;ind how gloriously 
they brought the Union out of its state 
of depression and distress. Truly, Gen- 
tlemen, these founders and fathers of 
the Constitution were great men, and 
thoroughly furnished for every good 
work. All that reading and learning 
could do ; all that talent and intelli- 
gence could do; and, what perhaps is 
still more, all that long experience in 
difficult and troubled times and a deep 
and intimate practical knowledge of the 
condition of the country could do, — 
conspired to fit them for the great busi- 
ness of forming a general, but limited 
government, embracing common objects, 
extending over all the States, and yet 
touching the power of the States no fur- 
ther than those common objects require. 
I confess I love to linger around these 
original fountains, and to drink deep of 
their waters. I love to imbibe, in as 
full measure as I may, the spirit of those 
who laid the foundations of the govern- 
ment, and so wisely and skilfully bal- 
anced and adjusted its bearings and pro- 
portions. 

Having been afterwards, for eight 
years, Secretary of State, and as long 
President, Mr. jNIadison has had an ex- 
perience in the affairs of the Constitu- 
tion, certainly second to no man. More 
than any other man living, and perhaps 
more than any other who has lived, his 
whole public life has been incorporated, 
as it w^ere, into the Constitution; in the 
original conception and project of at- 
tempting to form it, in its actual fram- 
ing, in explaining and recommending it, 
by speaking and writing, in assisting at 
the first organization of the government 
under it, and in a long administration 
of its executive powers, — in these vari- 
ous ways he has lived near the Consti- 
tution, and with the power of imbibing 
its true .spirit, and inhaling its very 
breath, from its first pulsation of life. 
Again, therefore, I ask, If he cannot 
tell us what the Constitution is, and 
what it means, who can? He had re- i 



tired with the respect and regard of the 
community, and might naturally be sup- 
posed not willing to interfere again in 
matters of political concern, lie has, 
nevertheless, not withholden his opin- 
ions on the vital question discussed on 
that occasion, which has caused this 
meeting. He has stated, with an ac- 
curacy almost peculiar to himself, and 
so stated as, in my opinion, to place al- 
most beyond furtlier controversy, the 
true doctrines of the Constitution. He 
has stated, not notions too loose and ir- 
regular to be called even a theory, not 
ideas struck out by the feeling of pres- 
ent inconvenience or supposed male- 
administration, not suggestions of ex- 
pediency, or evasions of fair and 
straightforward construction, but ele- 
mentary principles, clear and sound dis- 
tinctions, and indisputable truths. I 
am sure. Gentlemen, that I sjieak your 
sentiments, as well as my own, when I 
say, that, for making public so clearly 
and distinctly as he has done his 
own opinions on these vital questions 
of constitutional law, Mr. ]\Iadison has 
founded a new and strong claim on the 
gratitude of a grateful country. You 
will think, with me, that, at his ad- 
vanced age, and in the enjoyment of 
general respect and approbation for a 
long career of public services, it was an 
act of distinguished patriotism, when 
he saw notions promulgated and main- 
tained which he deemed unsound and 
dangerous, not to hesitate to come for- 
ward and to place the weight of his own 
opinion in what he deemed the right 
scale, come what come might. I am 
sure. Gentlemen, it cannot be doubted, 
— the manifestation is clear, — that the 
country feels deeply the force of this new 
obligation.^ 

Gentlemen, what I have said of tlie 
benefits of the Constitution to your 
city might be said, with little change, 
in respect to every other part of the 
country. Its benefits are not exclusive. 
What has it left undone, which any 
government could do, for the whole 

1 The reference is to Mr. Madison's lelfcr on 
the suhjoct of NaUiJicdtion, in the North .Vineri- 
can Iweview, Vol. XXXI. p. 5.i7. 



\ 



314 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



country? In what conditioa has it 
placed us? Where do we now stand? 
Are we elevated, or degraded, by its 
operation? AVliat is our condition un- 
der its influence, at the very moment 
when some talk of arresting its power 
and breaking its unity? Do we not feel 
ourselves on an eminence? Do we not 
challenge the respect of the whole world? 
What has placed us thus high? What 
has given us this Just pride? What else 
is it, but the unrestrained and free op- 
eration of that same Federal Constitu- 
tion, which it has been proposed now 
to hamper, and manacle, and nullify? 
Who is there among us, that, should he 
find himself on any spot of the eai-th 
where human beings exist, and where 
the existence of other nations is known, 
would not be proud to say, I am an 
American? I am a countryman of 
Washington? I am a citizen of that 
republic, which, although it has sud- 
denly sprung up, yet there are none on 
the globe who have ears to hear, and 
have not heard of it ; who have eyes to 
see, and have not read of it; who know 
any thing, and yet do not know of its 
existence and its glory? And, Gentle- 
men, let me now reverse the picture. 
Let me ask, who there is among us, if 
he were to be found to-morrow in one 
of the civilized countries of Europe, and 
were there to learn that this goodly form 
of government had been overthrown, 
that the United States were no longer 
united, that a death-blow had been 
struck upon their bond of union, that 
they themselves had destroyed their 
chief good and their chief honor, — who 
is there w'hose heart would not sink 
within him? Who is there wlife) would 
not cover his face for very sham»? 

At this very moment. Gentlemen, our 
country is a general refuge for the dis- 
tressed and the persecuted of other na- 
tions. Whoever is in affliction from 
political occurrences in his own country 
looks here for shelter. Whether he be 
republican, flying from the oi:)pression of 
thrones, or whether he be monarch or 
monarchist, flying from thrones that 
crumble and fall under or around him, 
he feels equal assurance, that, if he get 



foothold on our soil, his person will be 
safe, and his rights will be respected. 

And who will venture to say, that, in 
any government now existing in the 
world, there is greater security for per- 
sons or property than in that of the 
United States? We have tried these 
popular institutions in times of great ex- 
citement and commotion, and they have 
stood, substantially, firm and steady, 
while the fountains of the great politi- 
cal deep have been elsewhere broken up ; 
while thrones, resting on ages of pre- 
scription, have tottered and fallen; and 
while, in other countries, the earthquake 
of unrestrained popular commotion has 
swallowed up all law, and all liberty, and 
all right together. Our government has 
been tried in peace, and it has been tried 
in war, and has proved itself fit for both. 
It has been assailed from without, and 
it has successfully resisted the shock; 
it has been disturbed within, and it has 
effectually quieted the disturbance. It 
can stand trial, it can stand assault, it 
can stand adversity, it can stand every 
thing, but the marring of its own beauty, 
and the weakening of its own strength. 
It can stand every thing but the effects 
of our own rashness and our own folly. 
It can stand everything but disorganiza- 
tion, disunion, and nullification. 

It is a striking fact, and as true as it 
is striking, that at this very moment, 
among all the principal civilized states 
of the world, that government is most 
secure against the danger of popular 
commotion which is itself entirely popu- 
lar. It seems, indeed, that the submis- 
sion of every thing to the public will, 
under constitutional restraints, imposed 
by the people themselves, furnishes it- 
self security that they will desire noth- 
ing wrong. 

Certain it is, that popular, constitu- 
tional liberty, as we enjoy it, appears, 
in the present state of the world, as 
sure and stable a basis for government 
to rest upon, as any government of en- 
lightened states can find, or does find. 
Certain it is, that, in these times of 
so much popular knowledge, and so 
much popular activity, those govern- 
ments which do not admit the people 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



31i 



to partake in their administration, but 
keep them under and beneath, sit on 
materials for an explosion, which may 
take pla<"e at any moment, and blow 
them into a thousand atoms. 

Gentlemen, let any man who would 
degrade and enfeeble the national Con- 
stitution, let any man who would nullify 
its laws, stand forth and tell us what he 
would wish. What does he propose? 
Whatever lie may be, and whatever sub- 
stitute he may hold forth, I am sure the 
people of this country will decline his 
kind interference, and hold on by the 
Constitution which they possess. Any 
one who would willingly destroy it, I 
rejoice to know, would be looked upon 
with abhorrence. It is deeply intrenched 
in the regards of the people. Doubtless 
it may be undermined by artful and 
long-continued hostility; it may be im- 
perceptibly weakened by secret attack; 
it may be insidiously shorn of its powers 
bj' slow degrees; the public vigilance 
may be lulled, and when it awakes, it 
may find the Constitution frittered away. 
In these modes, or some of them, it is 
possible that the union of the States 
may be di.ssolved. 

But if the general attention of the 
people be kept alive, if they see the in- 
tended mischief before it is effected, 
they will prevent it by their own sover- 
eign power. They will interpose them- 
selves between the meditated blow and 
the object of their regard and attach- 
ment. Next to the controlling authority 
of the people themselves, the preserva- 
tion of the government is mainly com- 
mitted to those who administer it. If 
conducted in wisdom, it cannot but 
stand strong. Its genuine, original 
spirit is a patriotic, liberal, and gener- 
ous spirit; a spirit of conciliation, of 
moderation, of candor, and charity; a 
spirit of friendship, and not a spirit of 
hostility toward the States; a spirit 
careful not to exceed, and equally care- 
ful not to relinquish, its just powers. 
While no interest can or ought to feel 
itself shut out from the benefits of the 
Constitution, none should consider tho.se 
benefits as exclusively its own. The 
interests of all must be consulted, and 



reconciled, and provided for, as far as 
possible, that all may perceive tlie bene- 
fits of a united government. 

Among other things, we are to re- 
member that new States have ari.seu, 
possessing already an immense popida- 
tion, spreading and thickiMiing over vast 
regions which were a wilderness when 
the Constitution was adopted. Tiiose 
States are not, like New York, directly 
connected with maritime commerce. 
They are entirely agricultural, and need 
markets for consumption ; and they need, 
too, access to those mai-kets. It is the 
duty of the government to bring tiie 
interests of these new States into the 
Union, and incorporate them closely in 
the family compact. Gentlemen, it is 
not impracticable to reconcile these vari- 
ous interests, and so to administer the 
government as to make it useful to all. 
It was never easier to administer the 
government than it is now. We are 
beset with none, or with few, of its 
original difficulties; and it is a time of 
great general prosperity and happiness. 
Shall we admit ourselves incompetent 
to carry on the government, so as to be 
satisfactory to the whole country? Shall 
we admit that there has so little de- 
scended to us of the wisdom and pru- 
dence of our fathers? If the governmi'ut 
could be administered in Washington's 
time, when it was yet new, when the 
country was heavily in debt, when foreign 
relations were in a threatening condition, 
and when Indian wars pressed on tlie 
frontiers, can it not be administered 
now ? Let us not acknowledge our- 
selves so unequal to our duties. 

Gentlemen, on tlie occasion referred 
to by the chair, it became necessary to 
con.sider the judicial power, and its 
proper functions under the Constitution. 
In every free and balanced government, 
this is a most essential and important 
power. Indeed, I think it is a remark 
of Mr. Hume, that the administration of 
justice seeiiTB to be the Itnuling ohj-'ct of 
institutions of government; that legis- 
latures assemble, that armies are em- 
bodied, that botli war and peace are 
made, with a sort of ultimate reference 
to the proper administration of laws, 



316 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



and the judicial protection of private 
rights. The judicial power comes home 
to every man. If the legislature passes 
incorrect or unjust general lavps, its mem- 
bers bear the evil as well as others. But 
judicature acts on individuals. It touches 
every private right, every private in- 
terest, and almost every private feeling. 
What we possess is liardly fit to be 
called our own, unless we feel secure in 
its posse.ssion; and this security, this 
feeling of perfect safety, cannot exist 
under a wicked, or even under a weak 
and ignorant, administration of the 
laws. There is no happiness, there is 
no liberty, tliere is no enjoyment of life, 
unless a man can say when he rises in 
the morning, I shall be subject to the 
decision of no unjust judge to-day. 

But, Gentlemen, the judicial depart- 
ment, under the Constitution of the 
United States, possesses still higher 
duties. It is true, that it may be 
called on, and is occasionally called on, 
to decide questions which are, in one 
sense, of a political nature. The general 
and State governments, both established 
by the people, are established for differ- 
ent purposes, and with different powers. 
Between those powers questions may 
arise; and who shall decide them? 
Some provision for this end is absolutely 
necessary. What shall it be ? This was 
the question before the Convention; and 
various schemes were suggested. It was 
foreseen that the States might inadver- 
tently pass laws inconsistent with the 
Constitution of the United States, or 
with acts of Congress. At least, laws 
might be passed which would be charged 
with such inconsistency. How should 
these questions be disposed of? Where 
shall the power of judging, in cases of 
alleged interference, be lodged? One 
suggestion in the Convention was, to 
make it an executive power, and to 
lodge it in the iiands of the President, 
by requiring all State laws to be sub- 
mitted to him, that he might negative 
such as he thought appeared repugnant 
to the general Constitution. This idea, 
perhaps, may have been borrowed from 
the power exercised by the ci'own over 
the laws of the Colonies. It would evi- 



dently have been, not only an inconven- 
ient and troublesome proceeding, but 
dangerous also to the powers of the 
States. It was not pressed. It was 
thought wiser and safer, on the whole, 
to require State legislatures and State 
judges to take an oath to support the 
Constitution of the United States, and 
then leave the States at liberty to pass 
whatever laws they pleased, and if in- 
terference, in point of fact, should arise, 
to refer the question to judicial decision. 
To this end, the judicial power, under 
the (Constitution of the United States, 
was made coextensive with the legisla- 
tive power. It was extended to all 
cases arising under the Constitution and 
the laws of Congress. The judiciary 
became thus possessed of the authority 
of deciding, in the last resort, in all 
cases of alleged interference, between 
State laws and the Constitution and 
laws of Congress. 

Gentlemen, this is the actual Consti- 
tution, this is the law of the land. 
There may be those who think it un- 
necessary, or who would prefer a differ- 
ent mode of deciding such questions. 
But this is the established mode, and, 
till it be altered, the courts can no more 
decline their duty on these occasions 
than on other occasions. But can any 
I'easonable man doubt the expediency of 
this provision, or suggest a better? Is 
it not absolutely essential to the peace 
of the country that this power should 
exist somewhere? Where can it exist, 
better than where it now does exist ? 
The national judiciary is the common 
tribunal of the whole country. It is 
organized by the common authority, and 
its places filled by the common agent. 
This is a plain and practical provision. 
It was framed by no bunglers, nor by 
any wild theorists. And who can say 
that it has failed ? Who can find sub- 
stantial fault with its operation or its 
results? The great question is, whether 
we shall provide for the peaceable decis- 
ion of cases of collision. Shall they be 
decided by law, or by force ? Shall the 
decisions be decisions of peace, or decis- 
ions of war ? 

On the occasion which has given rise 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



317 



to this meeting, the proposition con- 
tended for in opposition to the doctrine 
just stated was, that every State, under 
certain supposed exigencies, and in cer- 
tain supposed cases, might decide for 
itself, and act for itself, and oppose its 
own force to the execution of the laws. 
By what argument, do you imagine, 
Gentlemen, was such a proposition 
maintained? I should call it meta- 
pliysical and subtle; but these terms 
would imply at least ingenuity, and 
some degree of plausibility ; whereas the 
argument appears to me plain assuuip- 
tion, mere perverse construction of plain 
language in the body of the Constitution 
itself. As I understand it, when put 
forth in its revised and most authentic 
shape, it is this : that the Constitution 
j)rovides that any amendments may be 
made to it which shall be agreed to by 
three fourths of the States; there is, 
therefore, to be nothing in the Constitu- 
tion to which three fourths of the States 
have not agreed. All this is true; but 
then comes this inference, namely, 
that, wlien one State denies the con- 
stitutionality of any law of Congress, 
she may arrest its execution as to 
herself, and keep it arrested, till the 
States can all be consulted by their 
conventions, and three fourths of them 
shall have decided that the law is con- 
stitutional. Indeed, the inference is 
still stranger than this; for State con- 
ventions have no authority to construe 
the Constitution, though they have 
authority to amend it; therefore the 
argument must prove, if it prove any 
thing, that, when any one State de- 
nies that any particular power is in- 
cluded in the Constitution, it is to be 
considered as not included, and cannot 
be found there till three fourths of the 
States agree to insert it. In sliort, the 
result of the whole is, that, though it 
requires three fourths of the States to 
insert any thing in the Constitution, yet 
any one State can strike any thing out 
of it. For the power to strike out, and 
the power of deciding, without appeal, 
upon the construction of what is already 
in, are substantially and practically the 
same. 



And, Gentlemen, what a spectacle 
should we have exhibited under the 
actual operation of notions like these! 
At the very moment when our govern- 
ment was quoted, praised, and com- 
mended all over the world, wlien the 
friends of republican liberty overv- 
where were gazing at it with delight, 
and were in perfect admiration at the 
harmony of its movements, one State 
steps forth, and, by the power of nulli- 
fication, breaks up the wliole system, 
and scatters the bright chain of the 
Union into as many sundered links as 
there are separate States! 

Seeing the true grounds of the Con- 
stitution thus attacked, I raised my 
voice in its favor, I must confess with 
no preparation or previous intention. I 
can hardly say that I embarked in the 
contest from a sense of duty. It was 
an instantaneous impulse of inclination, 
not acting against duty, I trust, but 
hai-dly waiting for its suggestions. I 
felt it to be a contest for the integrity 
of the Constitution, and I was ready to 
enter into it, not thinking, or caring, 
personally, how T might come out. 

Gentlemen, I have true pleasure in 
saying tliat I trust the crisis has in 
some measure passed by. The doctrin(!.s 
of nullification have received a severe 
and stern rebuke from public opinion. 
The general reprobation of the country 
has been cast upon them. Recent ex- 
pressions of the most numerous branch 
of the national legislature are decisive 
and imposing. Everywhere, the gen- 
eral tone of public feeling is for the 
Constitution. While much will be 
yielded — every thing, almost, but tlio 
integrity of the Constitution, and the 
essential interests of the country — to 
the cause of mutual harmony and mut- 
ual conciliation, no ground can bi- 
gi-anted, not an inch, to menace and 
bluster. Indeed, menace and bluster, 
and the putting forth of daring, uncon- 
stitutional doctrines, are, at this very 
moment, the chief ol)stacles to mutual 
harmony and sittisfactory accommoda- 
tion Men cannot well reason, and con- 
fer, and take coun.sel together, about the 
discreet exercise of a power, willi tlioso 



318 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK, 



who deny that any such power right- 
fully exists, and who threaten to blow 
up the whole Constitution if they can- 
not otherwise get rid of its operation. 
It is matter of sincere gratification, 
Gentlemen, that the voice of this great 
State has been so clear and strong, and 
her vote all but unanimous, on the most 
interesting of these occasions, in the 
House of Representatives. Certainly, 
such respect to the Union becomes New 
York. It is consistent with her inter- 
ests and her character. That singularly 
prosperous State, which now is, and is 
likely to continue to be, the greatest 
link in the chain of the Union, will 
ever be, I am sure, the strongest link 
also. The great States which lie in her 
neighborhood agreed with her fully in 
this matter. Pennsylvania, I believe, 
was loyal to the Union, to a man; and 
Ohio raises her voice, like that of a 
lion, against whatsoever threatens dis- 
union and dismemberment. This har- 
mony of sentiment is truly gratifying. 
It is not to be gainsaid, that the union 
of opinion in this gi-eat central mass of 
our population, on this momentous point 
of the Constitution, augurs well for our 
future prosperity and security. 

I have said. Gentlemen, what I verily 
believe to be true, that there is no dan- 
ger to the Union from open and avowed 
attacks on its essential principles. Noth- 
ing is to be feared from those who will 
march up boldly to their own proposi- 
tions, and tell us that they mean to an- 
nihilate powers exercised by Congress. 
But, certainly, there are dangers to the 
Constitution, and we ought not to shut 
our eyes to them. We know the im- 
portance of a firm and intelligent judi- 
ciary; but how shall we secure the 
continuance of a firm and intelligent 
judiciary? Gentlemen, the judiciary is 
in the appointment of the executive 
power. It cannot continue or renew 
itself. Its vacancies are to be filled in 
the ordinary modes of executive ap- 
pointment. If the time shall ever come 
(which Heaven avert), when men shall 
be placed in the supreme tribunal of the 
country, who entertain opinions hostile 
to the just powers of the Constitution, 



we shall then be visited by an evil defy- 
ing all remedy. Our case will be past 
surgery. From that moment the Con- 
stitution is at an end. If they who are 
appointed to defend the castle shall be- 
tray it, woe betide those within! If I 
live to see that day come, I shall despair 
of the country. I shall be prepared to 
give it back to all its former afiiictions, 
in the days of the Confederation. I 
know no security against the possibility 
of this evil, but an awakened public 
vigilance. I know no safety, but in 
that state of public opinion which shall 
lead it to rebuke and put down every 
attempt, either to gratify party by judi- 
cial appointments, or to dilute the Con- 
stitution by creating a court which shall 
construe away its provisions. If mem- 
bers of Congress betray their trust, the 
people will find it out before they are 
ruined. If the President should at any 
time violate his duty, his term of oSice 
is short, and popular elections may sup- 
ply a seasonable remedy. But the judges 
of the Supreme Court possess, for very 
good reasons, an independent tenure of 
office. No election reaches them. If, 
with this tenure, they betray their trusts, 
Heaven save us ! Let us hope for better 
results. The past, certainly, may en- 
courage us. Let us hope that we shall 
never see the time when there shall exist 
such an awkward posture of affairs, as 
that the government shall be found in 
opposition to the Constitution , and when 
the guardians of the Union shall become 
its betrayers. 

Gentlemen, our country stands, at the 
present time, on commanding ground. 
Older nations, with different systems of 
government, may be somewhat slow to 
acknowledge all that justly belongs to 
us. But we may feel without vanity, 
that America is doing her part in the 
great work of improving human affairs. 
There are two principles, Gentlemen, 
strictly and purely American, which are 
now likely to prevail throughout the civ- 
ilized world. Indeed, they seem the 
necessary result of the progress of civ- 
ilization and knowledge. These are, 
first, popular governments, restrained 



r 



PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 



319 



by written constitutions; and, secondly, 
universal education. Popular govern- 
ments and general education, acting 
and reacting, mutually producing and 
reproducing each other, are the mighty 
agencies which in our days appear to 
be exciting, stimulating, and changing 
civilized societies. Man, everywhere, is 
now found demanding a participation 
in government, — and he will not be 
refused; and he demands knowledge as 
necessary to self-government. On the 
basis of these two principles, liberty 
and knowledge, our own American sys- 
tems rest. Thus far we have not been 
disappointed in their results. Our 
existing institutions, raised on these 
foundations, have conferred on ns al- 
most unmixed happiness. Do we hope 
to better our condition by change? 
When we shall have nullified the pres- 
ent Constitution, what are we to receive 
in its place? As fathers, do we wish 
for our children better government, or 
better laws? As members of society, 
as lovers of our country, is there any 
thing we can desire for it better than 
that, as ages and centuries roll over it, 
it may possess the same invaluable in- 
stitutions which it now enjoys? For 
my part. Gentlemen, I can only say, 
that I desire to thank the beneficent 
Author of all good for being born where 
I was born, and when I was born; that 
the portion of human existence allotted 
to me has been meted out to me in this 
goodly land, and at this interesting 
period. I rejoice that I have lived to 
see so much development of truth, so 
much progress of liberty, so much dif- 
fusion of virtue and happiness. And, 
through good report and evil report, it 
will be my consolation to be a citizen of 
a republic unequalled in the annals of 
the world for the freedom of its institu- 
tions, its high prosperity, and the pros- 
pects of good which yet lie before it. 
Our course. Gentlemen, is onward, 
straight onward, and forward. Let us 
not turn to the right hand, nor to the 



left. Our path is marked out for us, 
clear, plain, bright, distinctly defined, 
like the milky way across the heavens. 
If we are true to our country, in our 
day and generation, and those who come 
after us shall be true to it also, assuredly, 
assuredly, we shall elevate her to apitcii 
of prosperity and happiness, of honor 
and power, never yet reached by any 
nation beneath the sun. 

Gentlemen, before I resume my seat, 
a highly gratifying duty remains to be 
pei-formed. In signifying your senti- 
ments of regard, you have kindly chosen 
to select as your organ for expressing 
them the eminent person ^ near whom I 
stand. I feel, I cannot well say how 
sensibly, the manner in which he has 
seen fit to speak on this occasion. 
Gentlemen, if I may be supjiosed to 
have made any attainment in the knowl- 
edge of constitutional law, he is among 
the masters in whose schools I have been 
taught. You see near him a distin- 
guished magistrate, 2 long associated 
with him in judicial labors, which have 
conferred lasting benefits and lasting 
character, not only on the State, but on 
the whole country. Gentlemen, I ac- 
knowledge myself much tlieir debtor. 
While yet a youth, unknown, and with 
little expectation of, becoming known 
beyond a very limited circle, I have 
passed days and nights, not of tedious, 
but of happy and gratified labor, in the 
study of the judicature of the State of 
New York. I am most happy to have 
this public opportunity of acknowledg- 
ing the obligation, and of repaying it. as 
far as it can be repaid, by the poor tril)- 
ute of my profound regard, and the 
earnest expression of my sincere re- 
spect. 

Gentlemen, I will no longer detain 
you than to propose a toast: — . 

The City of New York; her.self the 
noblest eulogy on the Union of the 
States. 

1 Chancellor Kent, the presiding officer. 

2 Judge Spencer. 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF THE UNITED 
STATES BANK BILL. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
llTH OF JULY, 1832, ON THE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF THE BANK BILL. 



Mr. President, — No one will denj 
the high importance of the subject now 
before us. Congress, after full deliber- 
ation and discussion, has jsassed a bill, 
by decisive majorities, in both houses, for 
extending the duration of the Bank of 
the United States. It has not adopted 
this measure until its attention had 
been called to the subject, in three suc- 
cessive annual messages of the Presi- 
dent. The bill having been thus passed 
by both houses, and having been duly 
presented to the President, instead of 
signing and approving it, he has re- 
turned it with objections. These objec- 
tions go against the whole substance of 
the law originally creating the bank. 
They deny, in effect, that the bank is 
constitutional ; they deny that it is expe- 
dient ; they deny that it is necessary for 
the public service. 

It is not to be doubted, that the Con- 
stitution gives the President the power 
which he has now exercised ; but while 
the power is admitted, the grounds upon 
which it has been exerted become fit 
subjects of examination. The Consti- 
tution makes it the duty of Congress, 
in cases like this, to reconsider the 
measure which they have passed, to 
weigh the force of the President's ob- 
jections to that measure, and to take a 
new vote upon the question. 

Before the Senate proceeds to this 
second vote, I propose to make some 
remarks upon those objections. And, 
in the first place, it is to be observed, 
that the}' are such as to extinguish all 



hope that the present bank, or any bank 
at all resembling it, or resembling any 
known similar institution, can ever re- 
ceive his aj^probation. He states no 
terms, no qualifications, no conditions, no 
modifications, which can reconcile him to 
the essential provisions of the existing 
charter. He is against the bank, and 
against any bank constituted in a manner 
known either to this or any other country. 
One advantage, therefore, is certainly 
obtained by presenting him the bill. It 
has caused the President's sentiments 
to be made known. Theie is no longer 
any mystery, no longer a contest be- 
tween hope and fear, or between those 
prophets who predicted a veto and those 
who foretold an approval. The bill is 
negatived ; the President has assumed 
the responsibility of putting an end to 
the bank ; and the country must prepare 
itself to meet that change in its concerns 
which the expiration of the charter 
will produce. Mr. President, I will not 
conceal my opinion that the affairs of 
the country are approaching an impor- 
tant and dangerous crisis. At the very 
moment of almost unparalleled general 
prosperity, there appears an unaccount- 
able disposition to destroy the most use- 
ful and most approved institutions of the 
government. Indeed, it- seems to be in 
the midst of all this national happiness 
that some are found openly to question 
the advantages of the Constitution itself; 
and many more ready to embarrass the 
exercise of its just power, weaken its 
authority, and undermine its founda- 



\ 



THE PRESIDENTL.L VETO. 



321 



tions. How far these notions may be 
carried, it is impossible yet to say. We 
have before us the practical result of one 
of them. The bank has fallen, or is to 
fall. 

It is now certain, that, -without a 
change in our public counsels, this bank 
will not be continued, nor will any other 
be established, which, according to the 
general sense and language of mankind, 
can be entitled to the name. Within 
three years and nine months from the 
presput moment, the charter of the bank 
expires; within that period, therefore, 
it must wind up its concerns. It must 
call in its debts, withdraw its bills from 
circulation, and cease from all its ordi- 
nary operations. All this is to be done 
ill three years and nine months; be- 
cause, although there is a provision in 
the charter rendering it lawful to use the 
corporate name for two years after the 
exjii ration of the charter, yet this is 
allowed only for the purpose of suits 
and for the sale of the estate belonging 
to the bank, and ft)r no other purpose 
whatever. The whole active l)usiness 
of the bank, its custody of public de- 
posits, its transfer of public moneys, its 
dealing in exchange, all its loans and 
discounts, and all its issues of bills 
for circulation, must cease and deter- 
mine on or before the third day of 
March, ISoO; and within the same 
period its debts must be collected, as no 
new contract can be made with it, as a 
corporation, for the renewal of loans, or 
discount of notes or bills, after that time. 

The President is of opinion, that this 
time is long enough to close the concerns 
of the institution without inconvenience. 
Ilis language is, " The time allowed the 
bank to close its concerns is ample, and 
if it has been well managed, its press- 
ure will be light, and heavy only in case 
its management has been bad. If, there- 
fore, it shall produce distress, the fault 
will be its own." Sir, this is all no more 
than general statement, without fact or 
argument to support it. We know what 
the management of the bank has been, 
and we know the present state of its af- 
fairs. We can judge, therefore, whether 
it be probable that its capital can be all 



called in, and the circulation of iUi 
bills withdrawn, in three years and niiiQ 
months, by any di.scretion or prudence in 
management, without producing distress. 
The bank has di.'<counted liln'rally, in 
compliance with the wants of the coin- 
numity. The amount due to it on Inuns 
and discounts, in certain large divisions 
of the country, is great; so great, that 
I do not perceive how any man can be- 
lieve that it can be paid, within the 
time now limited, without distress. Let 
us look at known facts. Thirty mil- 
lions of the capital of the bank are now 
out, on loans and discounts, in the 
States on the Mississippi and its waters; 
ten millions of which are loaned on the 
discount of bills of exchange, foreign 
and domestic, and twenty millions on 
promissory notes. Now, Sir, how is it 
possible that this vast amount can be 
collected in so short a period witliout 
suffering, by any management whatever? 
We are to remember, that, when the 
collection of this debt begins, at tliat 
same time the existing medium of pay- 
ment, that is, the circulation of the bills 
of the bank, will begin also to be re- 
strained and withdrawn; and thus the 
means of payment must be limitt'd just 
when the necessity of making paynicnt 
becomes pressing. The whole debt ia 
to be paid, and within the same time 
the whole circulation withdrawn. 

The local banks, where then; are such, 
will be able to afford little assistance; 
because they themselves will feci a full 
share of the pressure. They will nut lie 
in a condition to extend their discounts, 
but, in all probability, obliged to cur- 
tail them. Whence, then, are the means 
to come for paying this debt? and in 
what medium is payment to be nnide? 
If all this may be done with but slight 
pressure on the community, what course 
of conduct is to accomi)lish it? How i.i 
it to be done? What othi'r thirty mil- 
lions are to supply the i)lace of thcso 
thirty millions now to be called in? 
What other circulation or nn'dinm of 
payment is to be adopted in tlie place of 
the bills of the bank? The message, 
following a singular train of argument, 
which had been u.sed in this house, haa 



21 



322 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



a loud lamentation upon the suffering of 
the Western States on account of their 
being obliged to pay even interest on 
this debt. This payment of interest is 
itself represented as exhausting their 
means and ruinous to their prosperity. 
But if the interest cannot be paid with- 
out pressure, can both interest and prin- 
cipal be paid in four years without 
pressure? The truth is, the interest has 
been paid, is paid, and may continue to 
be paid, without any pressure at all; 
because the money borrowed is profit- 
ably employed by those who borrow it, 
and the rate of interest which they pay 
is at least two per cent lower than the 
actual value of money in that part of 
the country. But to pay the whole 
principal in less than four years, losing, 
at the same time, the existing and ac- 
customed means and facilities of pay- 
ment created by the bank itself, and to 
do this without extreme embarrassment, 
without absolute distress, is, in my 
judgment, impossible. I hesitate not to 
say, that, as this veto travels to the 
West, it will depreciate the value of 
every man's property from the Atlantic 
States to the capital of Missouri. Its 
effects will be felt in the price of lands, 
the great and leading article of Western 
property, in the price of crops, in the 
products of labor, in the repression of 
enterprise, and in embarrassment to 
every kind of business and occupation. 
I state this opinion strongly, because I 
have no doubt of its truth, and am 
willing its correctness should be judged 
by the event. Without personal ac- 
quaintance with the Western States, I 
know enough of their condition to be 
satisfied that what I have predicted must 
happen. The people of the West are 
rich, but their riches consist in their 
immense quantities of excellent land, 
in the products of these lands, and in 
their spirit of enterprise. The actual 
value of money, or rate of interest, with 
them is high, because their pecuniary 
capital bears little proportion to their 
landed interest. At an average rate, 
money is not worth less than eight per 
cent per annum throughout the whole 
Western country, notwithstanding that 



it has now a loan or an advance from 
the bank of thirty millions, at six per 
cent. To call in this loan, at the rate 
of eight millions a year, in addition to 
the interest on the whole, and to take 
away, at the same time, that circulation 
which constitutes so gi'eat a portion of 
the medium of payment throughout that 
whole region, is an oiseration, which, 
however wisely conducted, cannot but 
inflict a blow on the community of tre- 
mendous force and frightful consequen- 
ces. The thing cannot be done without 
distress, bankruptcy, and ruin, to many. 
If the President had seen any practical 
manner in which this change might be 
effected without producing tliese conse- 
quences, he would have rendered infinite 
service to the community by pointing it 
out. But he has pointed out nothing, 
he has suggested nothing; he contents 
himself with saying, without giving any 
reason, that, if the pressui'e be heavy, 
the fault will be the bank's. I hope 
this is not merely an attempt to fore- 
stall opinion, and to throw on the bank 
the responsibility of those evils which 
threaten the country, for the sake of 
removing it from himself. 

The responsibility justly lies with him, 
and there it ought to remain. A great 
majority of the people are satisfied with 
the bank as it is, and desirous that it 
should be continued. They wished no 
change. The strength of this public 
sentiment has carried the bill through 
Congress, against all the influence of the 
administration, and all the power of or- 
ganized party. But the President has 
undertaken, on his own responsibility, 
to arrest the measure, by refusing his 
assent to the bill. He is answerable 
for the consequences, therefore, which 
necessarily follow the change which the 
expiration of the bank charter may pro- 
duce; and if these consequences shall 
prove disastrous, they can fairly be as- 
cribed to his policy only, and the policy 
of his administration. 

Although, Sir, I have spoken of the 
effects of this veto in the Western coun- 
try, it has not been because I considered 
that part of the United States exclu- 
sively affected by it. Some of the At- 



OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 



323 



lantic States may feel its consequences, 
})crhaps, as sensibly as those of the 
West, though not for the same reasons. 
The concern manifested by Pennsylva- 
nia for the renewal of the charter shows 
her sense of the importance of the bank 
to her own interest, and that of the na- 
tion. That great and enterprising State 
has entered into an extensive system of 
internal imitrovements, which necessa- 
rily makes hea^v^' demands on her credit 
and her resources ; and by the sound and 
acceptable currency which the bank af- 
fords, by the stability which it gives to 
private credit, and by occasional ad- 
vances, made in anticipation of her rev- 
enues, and in aid of her great objects, 
she has found herself benefited, doubt- 
less, in no inconsiderable degree. Her 
legislature has instructed her Senators 
here to advocate the renewal of the 
charter, at this session. They have 
obeyed her voice, and yet they have the 
misfortune to find that, in the judgment 
of the President, tlte meatiure in unconsli- 
tulional, unnecessary, dangerous lo liberty, 
and is, inoreorcr, ill-timed. 

But, Mr. President, it is not the local 
interest of the West, nor the particular 
interest of Pennsylvania, or any other 
State, which has influenced Congress 
in passing this bill. It has been gov- 
erned by a wise foresight, and by a 
desire to avoid embarrassment in the 
pecuniary concerns of the country, to 
secure the safe collection and conven- 
ient transmission of public moneys, to 
maintain the circulation of the countrj', 
sound and safe as it now happily is, 
against the possible effects of a wild 
spirit of speculation. Finding the bank 
highly useful. Congress has thought lit 
to provide for its continuance. 

As to the lime of passing this bill, it 
would seem to be the last thing to be 
thought of, as a ground of objection, by 
the President; since, from the date of 
his first message to the present time, he 
has never failed to call our attention to 
the subject with all possible apparent 
earnestness. So early as December, 
1829, in his message to the two houses, 
he declares, that he " cannot, in justice 
to the parties interested, too soon pre- 



sent the subject to the deliberate consid- 
eration of the legislature, in ord<M- to 
avoid the evils resulting from precipi- 
tancy, in a measure involving such 
important principles and such deep jh;- 
cuniary interests." Aware of this early 
invitation given to Congress to take up 
the subject, by the President himself, 
the writer of the message seems to vary 
the ground of objection, and, instead of 
complaining that the time of bringing 
forward this measure was premature, to 
insist, rather, that, after the report of 
the conunittee of the other house, the 
bank should have withdrawn its appli- 
cation for the present! But that report 
offers no just gTound, surely, for such 
withdrawal. The subject was before 
Congress ; it was for Congress to decide 
upon it, with all the liglit shed by the 
report; and tlie question of postpone- 
ment, having been made in both houses, 
was lost, by clear majorities, in each. 
Under such circumstances, it would 
have been somewhat singular, to say the 
least, if the bank itself had witlidrawn 
its application. It is indeed known lo 
everybody, that neither the report of 
the committee, nor any tiling contained 
in that report, was relied on by the oj.>- 
posers of the renewal. If it has been 
discovered elsewhere, that that report 
contained matter important in itself, or 
which should haA'e led to further inquiry, 
this may be proof of su^terior sagacity; 
for certainly no such thing was discerned 
by either house of Congress. 

But, Sir, do we not now see that it wa.s 
time, and high time, to press this bill, 
and to send it to the President? Does 
not the event teach us, that the moasuro 
was not brought forward one moment 
too early? The time had come when 
the ]>('oi)le wislied to know the decision 
of tliH administration on the question of 
the bank? Why conceal it, or postpone 
its declaration? Why, as in regard U> 
the tariff, give out one set of opinions for 
the North, and another for the South? 

An important election is at iiaiid, and 
the renewal of tiie bank charter is a 
pending object of great interest, and 
some excitement. Should not the opin- 
ions of men high in ofrice, and candi- 



324 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



dates for re-election, be known on this, 
as on other important piiblic questions? 
Certainly, it is to be hoped that the 
people of the United States are not yet 
mere man-worshippers, that they do not 
choose their rulers without some regard 
to their political principles, or political 
opinions. Were they to do this, it would 
be to subject themselves voluntarily to 
the evils which the hereditary transmis- 
sion of power, independent of all personal 
qualifications, inflicts on other nations. 
They will judge their public servants 
by their acts, and continue or withhold 
their confidence, as they shall think it 
merited, or as they shall think it for- 
feited. In eveiy point of view, there- 
fore, the moment had arrived, when it 
became the duty of Congress to come to 
a result, in regard to this highly impor- 
tant measure. The interests of the gov- 
ernment, the interests of the people, the 
clear and indisputable voice of public 
opinion, all called upon Congress to act 
without further loss of time. It has 
acted, and its act has been negatived by 
the President; and this result of the 
proceedings here places the question, 
with all its connections and all its inci- 
dents, fully before the people. 

Before proceeding to the constitutional 
question, there are some other topics, 
treated in the message, which ought to 
be noticed. It commences by an in- 
flamed statement of what it calls the 
"favor" bestowed upon the original 
bank by the government, or, indeed, as 
it is phrased, the " monopoly of its favor 
and support"; and through the whole 
message all possible changes are rung on 
the "gratuity," the "exclusive privi- 
leges," and "monopoly," of the bank 
charter. Now, Sir, the truth is, that 
the powers conferred on the bank are 
such, and no others, as are usually con- 
ferred on similar institutions. They 
constitute no monopoly, although some 
of them are of necessity, and with pro- 
priety, exclusive privileges. ' ' The origi- 
nal act," says the message, "operated 
as a gratuity of many millions to the 
stockholders." What fair foundation 
is there for this remark ? The stock- 
holders received their charter, not gratu- 



itously, but for a valuable consideration 
in money, prescribed by Congress, and 
actually paid. At some times the stock 
has been above par, at other times below 
par, according to prudence in manage- 
ment, or according to commercial occur- 
rences. But if, by a judicious adminis- 
tration of its affairs, it had kept its stock 
always above par, what pretence would 
there be, nevertheless, for saying that 
such augmentation of its value was a 
"gratuity" from government? The 
message proceeds to declare, that the 
present act proposes another donation, 
another gratuity, to the same men, of at 
least seven millions more. It seems to 
me that this is an extraordinary state- 
ment, and an extraordinary style of argu- 
ment, for such a subject and on such an 
occasion. In the first place, the facts 
are all assumed ; they are taken for true 
without evidence. There are no proofs 
that any benefit to that amount will 
accrue to the stockholders, nor any ex- 
perience to justify the expectation of it. 
It rests on random estimates, or mere 
conjecture. But suppose the continu- 
ance of the charter should prove bene- 
ficial to the stockholders ; do they not 
pay for it? They give twice as much 
for a charter of fifteen years, as was 
given before for one of twenty. And 
if the proposed bonus, or premium, be 
not, in the President's judgment, large 
enough, would he, nevertheless, on such 
a mere matter of opinion as that, nega- 
tive the whole bill? May not Congress 
be trusted to decide even on such a sub- 
ject as the amount of the money premium 
to be received by government for a char- 
ter of this kind? 

But, Sir, there is a larger and a much 
more just view of this subject. The bill 
was not passed for the purpose of bene- 
fiting the present stockholders. Their 
benefit, if any, is incidental and col- 
lateral. Nor was it passed on any idea 
that they had a right to a renewed char- 
ter, although the message argues against 
such right, as if it had been somewhere 
set up and asserted. No such right 
has been asserted by anybody. Con- 
gress passed the bill, not as a bounty or 
a favor to the present stockholders, nor 



OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 



325 



to comiily with any demiind of right on 
their part ; but to promote great public 
interests, for great public objects. Every 
bank must have some stockholders, un- 
less it be such a bank as the President 
has recommended, and in regard to 
which he seems not likely to find nnich 
concurrence of other men's opinions; 
and if the stockholders, whoever they 
may be, conduct the affairs of the bank 
prudently, the expectation is always, of 
course, that they will make it profitable 
to themselves, as well as useful to the 
public. If a bank charter is not to be 
granted, because, to some extent, it 
may be profitable to the stockholders, 
no charter can be granted. The objec- 
tion lies against all banks. 

Sir, the object aimed at by such insti- 
tutions is to connect the public safety 
and convenience w'ith private interests. 
It has been found by experience, that 
banks are safest under private manage- 
ment, and that government banks are 
among the most dangerous of all inven- 
tions. Now, Sir, the whole drift of the 
message is to reverse the settled judg- 
ment of all the civilized world, and to 
set up government banks, indeiieudent 
of private interest or private control. 
For this purpose the message labors, 
even beyond the measure of all its other 
labors, to create jealousies and preju- 
dices, on the ground of the alleged bene- 
fit which individuals will derive from 
the renewal of this charter. Much less 
effort is made to show that government, 
or the public, will be injured by the bill, 
than t'iuit individuals will profit by it. 
Following up the imjjulses of the same 
spirit, the message goes on gravely to 
allege, that the act, as passed by Con- 
gress, proposes to make a present of 
some millions of dollars to foreigners, 
because a portion of the stock is held 
by foreigners. Sir, how would this sort 
of argument apply to other cases? The 
President has shown himself not only 
willing, but anxious, to pay off tlie three 
per cent stock of the United States ai 
par, notwithstanding that it is notorious 
that foreigners are owners of the greater 
part of it. Why should he not call tliat a 
donation to foreigners of many millions? 



I will not dwell particidarly on this part 
of the message. Its tone and its argu- 
ments are all in the same strain. It 
speaks of the certain gain of the jiresent 
stockholders,' of the value of the mo- 
nopoly; it says that all monopolies are 
granted at the expense of tlie ])ublic; 
that the many millions which this bill 
bestows on the stockholders come out of 
the earnings of the people; that, if gov- 
ernment sells monopolies, it ought to sell 
them in open market ; that it is an er- 
roneous idea, that the present stock- 
holders have a prescriptive right either 
to the favor or the bounty of govern- 
ment; that the stock is in the hands of 
a few, and that the whole American peo- 
ple are excluded from competition in the 
purchase of the monopoly. To all this 
I say, again, that much of it is assump- 
tion without proof; much of it is an 
argument against that which nobody luus 
maintained or asserted ; and the rest of 
it would be equally strong against any 
charter, at any time. These objections 
existed in their full strength, whatever 
that was, against the first bank. They 
existed, in like manner, against tlie 
present bank at its creation, and will 
always exist against all banks. Indeed, 
all the fault found with the bill now 
before us is, that it proposes to continue 
the bank substantially as it now exists. 
" All the objectionable principles of the 
existing corporation," says the message, 
"and most of its odious features, are 
retained without alleviation"; so that 
the message is aimed against the bank, 
as it has existed from the first, and 
against any and all others resembling it 
in its general features. 

Allow me, now, Sir, to take notice of 
an argument founded on tlie practical 
operation of the bank. That argument 
is this. Little of the stock of tlio bank 
is held in the West, the capital l>fing 
chiefly owned by citizens of the Southern 
and Fastern States, and by foreigners. 
But the Western and Southwt-.stern 
States owe the bank a heavy debt, so 
heavy that the interest amounts io a 
million six hundred thousand a year. 
This interest is carried to tlie Eastern 
States, or to Europe, annually, and its 



326 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



payment is a burden on the people of 
the West, and a drain of their currency, 
which no country can bear without in- 
convenience and distress. The true 
character and the whole value of this 
argument are manifest by the mere state- 
ment of it. The people of the West are, 
from their situation, necessarily large 
borrowers. They need money, capital, 
and they borrow it, because they can 
derive a benefit from its use, much be- 
yond the interest which they pay. They 
borrow at six per cent of the bank, al- 
though the value of money with them is 
at least as high as eight.. Nevertheless, 
although they borrow at this low rate of 
interest, and although they use all they 
borrow thus profitably, yet they cannot 
pay the interest without "inconvenience 
and distress"; and then. Sir, follows 
the logical conclusion, that, although 
they cannot pay even the interest with- 
out inconvenience and distress, yet less 
than four years is ample time for the 
bank to call in the whole, both princi- 
pal and interest, without causing more 
than a light pressure. This is the argu- 
ment. 

Then follows another, which may be 
thus stated. It is competent to the 
States to tax the jwoperty of their citi- 
zens vested in the stock of this bank; 
but the power is denied of taxing the 
stock of foreigners ; therefore the stock 
will be worth ten or fifteen per cent more 
to foreigners than to residents, and will 
of course inevitably leave the country, 
and make the American people debtors 
to aliens in nearly the whole amount 
due the bank, and send across the At- 
lantic from two to five millions of specie 
every year, to pay the bank dividends. 

Mr. President, arguments like these 
might be more readily disposed of, were 
it not that the high and official source 
from which they proceed imposes the 
necessity of treating tliem with respect. 
In the first place, it may safely be denied 
that the stock of the bank is any more 
valuable to foreignei's tlian to our own 
citizens, or an object of greater desire 
to them, except in so far as capital may 
be more abundant in the foreign country, 
and therefore its owners more in want 



of opportunity of investment. The for- 
eign stockholder enjoys no exemption 
from taxation. He is, of course, taxed 
by his own government for his incomes, 
derived from this as well as other prop- 
erty; and this is a full answer to the 
whole statement. But it may be added, 
in the second place, that it is not the 
practice of civilized states to tax the 
property of foreigners under such cir- 
cumstances. Do we tax, or did we ever 
tax, the foreign holders of our public 
debt? Does Pennsylvania, New York, 
or Ohio tax the foreign holders of stock 
in the loans contracted by either of 
these States? Certainly not. Sir, I 
must confess I had little expected to 
see, on such an occasion as the present, 
a labored and repeated attempt to pro- 
duce an impression on the public opin- 
ion unfavorable to the bank, from the 
circumstance that foreigners are among 
its stockholders. I have no hesitation in 
saying, that I deem sach a train of re- 
mark as the message contains on this 
point, coming from the President of the 
United States, to be injurious to the 
credit and character of the country 
abroad; because it manifests a jealousy, 
a lurking disposition not to respect the 
property, of foreigners invited hither by 
our own laws. And, Sir, what is its 
tendency but to excite this jealousy, and 
create groundless prejudices? 

From the commencement of the gov- 
ernment, it has been thought desirable 
to invite, rather than to repel, the in- 
troduction of foreign capital. Our 
stocks have all been open to foreign 
subscriptions; and the State banks, in 
like manner, are free to foreign owner- 
ship. Whatever State has created a 
debt has been willing that foreigners 
should become purchasers, and desirous 
of it. How long is it. Sir, since Con- 
gress itself passed a law vesting new 
powers in the President of the United 
States over the cities in this District, 
for the very purpose of increasing their 
credit abroad, the better to enable them 
to borrow money to pay their subscrip- 
tions to the Chesapeake and Ohio 
Canal? It is easy to say that tliere is 
danger to liberty, danger to indepen- 



OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 



327 



dence, in a bank open to foreign stock- 
holders, because it is easy to say any 
thing. But neither reason nor experi- 
ence proves .any such danger. The for- 
eign stockholder cannot be a director. 
He has no voice even in the choice of 
directors. His money is placed entirely 
in the management of the du'ectors ap- 
pointed by the President and Senate 
and .by the American stockholders. So 
far as there is dependence or influence 
either way, it is to the disadvantage of 
the foreign stockholder. lie has parted 
with the control over his own inoperty, 
instead of exercising control over the 
property or over the actions of others. 
And, Sir, let it now be added, in further 
answer to this class of objections, that 
experience has abundantly confuted 
them all. This government has existed 
forty-three years, and has maintained, 
in full being and operation, a bank, 
such as is now proposed to be renewed, 
for thirty-six years out of the forty- 
three. We have never for a moment 
had a bank not subject to every one of 
these objections. Always, foreigners 
might be stockholders; always, foreign 
stock has been exempt from State tax- 
ation, as much as at present; always, 
the same power and privileges; always, 
all that which is now called a "mo- 
nopoly," a "gratuity," a "present," 
have been possessed by the bank. And 
yet there has been found no danger to 
liberty, no introduction of foreign influ- 
ence, and no accumulation of irrespon- 
sible power in a few hands. I cannot 
but hope, therefore, that the people of 
the United States will not now yield up 
their judgment to those notions which 
would reverse all our best experience, 
and persuade us to discontinue a useful 
institution from the influence of vague 
and unfounded declamation against its 
danger to the public liberties. Our lib- 
erties, indeed, must stand upon very 
frail foundations, if the government 
cannot, without endangering them, 
avail itself of those common facilities, 
in the collection of its revenues and tlie 
management of its finances, which all 
other governments, in commercial coun- 
tries, find useful and necessary. 



In order to justify its alarm for the 
security of our independence, the mes- 
sage sup])0ses a ease. It suppo.>*es that 
the bank should pass principally into 
the hands of the subjects of a foreign 
country, and tliat we should be involved 
in war with tiiat country, and tlien it 
exclaims, " What would be our condi- 
tion?" Why, Sir, it is plain that all 
the advantages would be on our side. 
The bank would still be our institution, 
subject to our own laws, and all its 
directors elected by ourselves; and our 
means would be enhanced, not by the 
confiscation and plunder, but by the 
proper use, of the foreign cai)ital in our 
hands. And, Sir, it is singular enough 
that this very state of war, from which 
this argument against a bank is drawn, 
is the very thing which, more than all 
others, convinced the country and the 
government of the necessity of a na- 
tional bank. So much was the want of 
such an institution felt in the late war, 
that the subject engaged the Jittentiou 
of Congress, constantly, from the decla- 
ration of that war down to the time 
when the existing bank was actually 
established; so that in this respect, as 
well as in others, the argument of the 
message is directly opjiosed to the whole 
experience of the government, and to 
the general and long-settled convictions 
of the country. 

I now proceed, Sir, to a few remarks 
upon the President's constitutional ob- 
jections to the bank; and I cannot for- 
bear to say, in regard to tlieni, that he 
appears to me to have assumed very e,\- 
traordinary grounds of reasoning. He 
denies tliat tlie constitutionality of the 
bank is a settled question. It" it be not, 
will it ever become so, or what disputed 
question ever can be settled? I have 
already observed, that for tliirty-six 
years out of the forty-three during whieli 
the government has been in being, a 
bank has existed, such as is now pro- 
posed to be continued. 

As early as 1791, after great di'iibenv- 
tion, tlie first bank cliarter was pa.s.seJ 
by Congress, and approved by Pre.sident 
Washington. It e>lablislicd an institu- 
tion, resembling, in all things now ob- 



328 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



jected to, the present bank. That bank, 
like this, could take lands in paj^ment of 
its debts; that charter, like the present, 
gave the States no power of taxation; it 
allowed foreigners to hold stock; it re- 
strained Congress from creating other 
banks. It gave also exclusive privi- 
leges, and in all particulars it was, ac- 
cording to the doctrine of the message, 
as objectionable as that now existing. 
That bank continued twenty years. In 
1S16, the present institution was estab- 
lished, and has been ever since in full 
operation. Now, Sir, the question of 
the power of Congress to create such 
institutions has been contested in every 
manner known to our Constitution and 
laws. The forms of the government 
furnish no new mode in which to try 
this question. It has been discussed 
over and over again, in Congress; it has 
been argued and solemnly adjudged in 
the Supreme Court; every President, 
except the present, has considered it a 
settled question ; many of the State legis- 
latures have instructed their Senators 
to vote for the bank ; the tribunals of 
the States, in every instance, have sup- 
ported its constitutionality; and, beyond 
all doubt and dispute, the general pub- 
lic opinion of the country has at all 
times given, and does now give, its full 
sanction and approbation to the exercise 
of this pow'er, as being a constitutional 
power. There has beep no opinion 
questioning the power expressed or inti- 
mated, at any time, by either house of 
Congress, by any President, or by any 
respectable judicial tribunal. Now, Sir, 
if this practice of near forty years, if 
these repeated exercises of the power, 
if this solemn adjudication of the Su- 
preme Court, with the concurrence and 
approbation of public opinion, do not 
settle the question, how is any question 
ever to be settled, about which any one 
may choose to raise a doubtV 

The argument of the message upon 
the Congressional precedents is either a 
bold and gross fallacy, or else it is an 
assertion without proofs, and against 
known facts. The message admits, 
that, in 1791, Congress decided in favor 
of a bank; but it adds, that another 



Congress, in 1811, decided against it. 
Now, if it be meant that, in 1811, Con- 
gress decided against the bank on con- 
stitutional ground, then the assertion 
is wholly incorrect, and against noto- 
rious fact. It is perfectly well known, 
that many members, in both houses, 
voted against the bank in 1811, who 
had no doubt at all of th^ constitutional 
power of Congress. They were entirely 
governed by other reasons given at the 
time. I appeal, Sir, to the honorable 
member from Maryland, who was then a 
member of the Senate, and voted against 
the bank, whether he, and others who 
wei-e on the same side, did not give 
those votes on other well-known grounds, 
and not at all on constitutional ground? 

General Smith here rose, and said, that 
he voted against the bank m 1811, but not 
at all on constitutional grounds, and had 
no doubt such was the case with other 
members. 

We all know. Sir, the fact to be as 
the gentleman from 'Maryland has stat- 
ed it. Every man who recollects, or 
who has read, the political occurrences 
of that day, knows it. Therefore, if the 
message intends to say, that in 1811 
Congress denied tiie existence of any 
such constitutional power, the declara- 
tion is unwarranted, and altogether at 
variance with the facts. If, on the 
other hand, it only intends to say, that 
Congress decided against the projX)sition 
then before it on some other grounds, 
then it alleges that which is nothing 
at all to the purpose. The argument, 
then, either assumes for truth that 
which is not true, or else the whole 
statement is immaterial and futile. 

But whatever value others may attach 
to this argument, the message thinks so 
highly of it, that it proceeds to repeat it. 
" One Congress," it says, " in 1815, de- 
cided against a bank, another, in 1816, 
decided in its favor. There is nothing 
in precedent, therefore, which, if its au- 
thority were admitted, ought to weigh in 
favor of the act before me." Now, Sir, 
since it is known to the whole country, 
one cannot but wonder how it should 
remain unknown to the President, that 



OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 



329 



Congress did not decide against a bank 
in 1815. On the contrary, that very 
Congress passed a bill for erecting a 
bank, by very large majorities. In one 
form, it is true, the bill failed in the 
House of Representatives; but the vote 
was reconsidered, the bill recommitted, 
and finally passed by a vote of one hun- 
dred and twenty to thirty-nine. There 
is, therefore, not only no solid ground, 
but not even any plausible pretence, for 
the assertion, that Congress in 1815 de- 
cided against the bank. That very Con- 
gress passed a bill to create a bank, and 
its decision, therefore, is precisely the 
other way, and is a direct practical prece- 
dent in favor of the constitutional power. 
What are we to think of -a constitutional 
argument which deals in this way with 
historical facts ? When the message de- 
clares, as it does declare, that there is 
nothing in i>recedent which ought to 
weigh in favor of the power, it sets at 
naught repeated acts of Congress affirm- 
ing the power, and it also states other 
acts, which were in fact, and which are 
well known to have been, directly the 
reverse of what the message represents 
them. There is not. Sir, the slightest 
reason to think that any Senate or any 
House of Kepresentatives, ever assem- 
bled under the Constitution, contained 
a majority that doubted the constitu- 
tional existence of the power of C!on- 
gress to establish a bank. Whenever 
the question has arisen, and has been 
decided, it has always been decided one 
way. The legislative precedents all as- 
sert and maintain the power; and these 
legislative precedents have been the law 
of the laud for almost forty years. They 
settle the construction of the Constitu- 
tion, and sanction the exercise of the 
power in question, so far as these effects 
can ever be produced by any legislative 
precedents whatever. 

But the President does not admit the 
authority of precedent. Sir, I have al- 
ways found, that those who habitually 
deny most vehemently the general force 
of precedent, and assert most strongly 
the supremacy of private opinion, are 
yet, of all men, most tenacious of that 
very authority of precedent, whenever it 



happens to be in their favor. I beg leave 
to ask, Sir, upon what ground, except that 
of precedent, and precedent alone, the 
President's friends have placed his pow cr 
of removal from office. No such power 
is given by the Constitution, in terms, 
nor anywhere intimated, througliout the 
whole of it; no paragraph or clause of 
that instrument recognizes such a power. 
To say the least, it is as questionable, 
and has been as often (juestioned, as the 
power of Congress to create a bank; 
and, enlightened by what has passed 
under our own observation, we now see 
that it is of all powers the most capable 
of flagrant abuse. Now, Sir, I ask 
again, \Vhat becomes of this power, if 
the authority of precedent be taken 
awayV It has all along been denied to 
exist; it is nowhere found in the Con- 
stitution; and its recent exercise, or, to 
call things by their right names, its re- 
cent abuse, has, more than any other 
single cause, rendered good men either 
cool in their affections toward the gov- 
ernment of their country, or doubtful of 
its long continuance. Yet there is prece- 
dent in favor of this power, and the Pres- 
ident exercises it. We know, Sir, that, 
without the aid of that precedent^ his 
acts could never have received the sanc- 
tion of this body, even at a time when 
his voice was somewhat more potential 
here than it now is, or, as I trust, ever 
again will be. Boes the Pi-esident, then, 
reject the authority of all precedent ex- 
cept what it is suitable to his own pur- 
pose to use ? And does he use, without 
stint or measure, all precedents which 
may augment his own power, or gratify 
his own wishes V 

But if the President thinks lightly of 
the authority of Congress in constiuing 
the Constitution, he thinks still mure 
lightly of the authority of the Supreme 
("ourt. He asserts a right of individual 
judgment on constitutional questions, 
which is totally inconsistent with any 
proper administration of the govern- 
ment, or any regular execution of the 
laws. Social disorder, entire uncertainty 
in regard to individual rights and intH- 
vidual duties, the cessation of legal au- 
thority, confusion, the dissolution of 



330 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



free government, — all these are the in- 
evitable consequences of the principles 
adopted by the message, whenever they 
shall be carried to- their full extent. 
Hitherto it has been thought that the 
final decision of constitutional questions 
belonged to the supreme judicial tribu- 
nal. The very nature of free govern- 
ment, it has been supposed, enjoins this; 
and our Constitution, moreover, has been 
undei'stood so to provide, clearly and ex- 
pressly. It is true, that each branch of 
the legislature has an undoubted right, 
in the exercise of its functions, to con- 
sider the constitutionality of a law pro- 
posed to be passed. This is naturally a 
part of its duty ; and neither branch can 
be compelled to pass any law, or do any 
other act, which it deems to be beyond 
the reach of its constitutional power. 
The President has the same right, when 
a bill is presented for his approval ; for 
he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in 
all cases, whether such bill be compat- 
ible with the Constitution, and whether 
he can approve it consistently with his 
oath of office. But when a law has been 
passed by Congress, and approved by the 
President, it is now no longer in the 
power, either of the same President, or 
his successors, to say whether the law is 
constitutional or not. He is not at lib- 
erty to disregard it ; he is not at liberty 
to feel or to affect " constitutional scru- 
ples," and to sit in judgment himself on 
the validity of a statute of the govern- 
ment, and to nullify it, if he so chooses. 
After a law has passed through all the 
requisite forms; after it has received 
the requisite legislative sanction and the 
executive approval, the question of its 
constitutionality then becomes a judicial 
question, and a judicial question alone. 
In the courts that question may be 
raised, argvied, and adjudged; it can be 
adjudged nowhere else. 

The President is as much bound by 
the law as any private citizen, and can 
no more contest its validity than any 
private citizen. He may refuse to obey 
the law, and so may a private citizen; 
but both do it at their own peril, and 
neither of them can settle the question 
of its validity. The President may say 



a law is unconstitutional, but he is not 
the judge. Who is to decide that ques- 
tion? The judiciary alone possesses 
this unquestionable and hitherto un- 
questioned I'ight. The judiciary is the 
constitutional tribunal of appeal for the 
citizens, against both Congress and the 
executive, in regard to the constitution- 
ality of laws. It has this jurisdiction 
expressly conferred upon it, and when 
it has decided the question, its judgment 
must, from the very nature of all judg- 
ments that are final, and from which 
there is no appeal, be conclusive. 
Hitherto, this opinion, and a corre- 
spondent practice, have prevailed, in 
America, with all wise and considerate 
men. If it were otherwise, there would 
be no government of laws; but we 
should all live under the government, 
the rule, the caprices, of individuals. 
If we depart from the observance of 
these salutary principles, the executive 
power becomes at once purely despotic; 
for the President, if the principle and 
the reasoning of the message be sound, 
may either execute or not execute the 
laws of the land, according to his sover- 
eign pleasure. He may refuse to put 
into execution one law, pronounced 
valid by all branches of the government, 
and yet execute another, which may 
have been by constitutional authority 
pronounced void. 

On the argument of the message, the 
President of the United States holds, 
under a new pretence and a new name, 
a dispensing power over the laws as abso- 
lute as was claimed by James the Second 
of England, a month before he was com- 
pelled to fly the kingdom. That which 
is now claimed by the President is in 
truth nothing less, and nothing else, 
than the old dispensing power asserted 
by the kings of England in the woi"st of 
times; the very climax, indeed, of all 
the preposterous pretensions of the Tu- 
dor and the Stuart races. According 
to the doctrines put forth by the Presi- 
dent, although Congress may have 
passed a law, and although the Supreme 
Court may have pronomiced it constitu- 
tional, yet it is, nevertheless, no law at 
all, if he, in his good pleasure, sees fit 



OF THE UNITED ST 

" to deny it effect ; in other words, to re- 
peal luid annul it. Sir, no President 
and no public man ever before advanced 
sucli doctrines in the face of the nation. 
There never before was a moment in 
^ which any President would have been 
"^ tolerated in asserting such a claim to 
despotic power. After Congress has 
l)assed the law, and after tlie Supreme 
Court has pronounced its judgment on 
tiie very point in controversy, the Presi- 
dent has set up his own private judg- 
ment against its constitutional interpre- 
tation. It is to be remembered, Sir, 
that it is the present law, it is the act of 
1810, it is the present charter of the 
bank, which the President pronounces 
to be unconstitutional. It is no bank 
to be created, it is no law proposed to be 
passed, which he denounces; it is the 
law now exiMing, passed by Congress, 
approved by President Madison, and 
sanctioned by a solemn judgment of the 
Supreme Court, which he now declares 
unconstitutional, and which, of course, 
so far as it may depend on him, cannot 
be executed. If these opinions of the 
President be maintained, there is an 
end of all law and all judicial authority. 
Statutes are but recommendations, judg- 
ments no more than opinions. Both 
are equally destitute of binding force. 
Such a univei-sal power as is now claimed 
for him, a power of judging over the 
laws and over the decisions of the judi- 
ciary, is nothing else but pure despotism. 
If conceded to him, it makes him at 
once what Louis the Fouiteenth pro- 
claimed himself to be when he said, " I 
am the State." 

The Supreme Court has unanimously 
declared and ailjndged tliat the existing 
bank ix created by a constitutional law 
of Congre.ss. As has been before ob- 
served, this bank, so far as the pre.sent 
question is concerned, is like that which 
was established in 1791 by Washington, 
and sanctioned by the gi'eat men of that 
day. In every form, therefore, in which 
the question can be raised, it has been 
raised and has been settled. Every pro- 
cess and every mode of trial known to 
the Constitution and laws have been ex- 
hausted, and always and without excep- 



ATES BANK RILL. 



331 



tion the decision has been in favor of the 
validity of the law. But all this practice, 
all this precedent, all this i)ul>lic approba- 
tion, all this solemn adjudication directly 
on tlie point, is to be disregarded and re- 
jected, and the constitutional [Kjwer flatly 
denied. And, Sir, if we are startled at 
this conclusion, our surpri.se will not be 
lessened when we examine tlie argument 
by which it is maintained. 

By the Constitution, Congress is au- 
thorized to pass all laws " nece.ssary and 
proper" for carrying its own legislative 
powers into effect. Congress has deemed 
a bank to be " necessary and proper " for 
these purposes, and it has thei-efore es- 
tablished a bank. But although the 
law has been pas.sed, and the bank (>s- 
tablished, and the constitutional validity 
of its charter solemnly adjudged, yet the 
President pronounces it unconstitutional, 
because some of the powers bestowed on 
the bank are, in his opinion, not neces- 
sary or proper. It would appear that 
powers which in 1791 and in 181G, in 
the time of Washington and in the time 
of Madison, were deemed " neces.sary 
and proper," are no longer to be .so re- 
garded, and therefore the bank is un- 
constitutional. It has really come to 
this, that the constitutioiuility of a bank 
is to depend upon the opinion which 
one particular man may form of the 
utility or necessity of some of the clause.s 
in its charter! If that individual 
chooses to think that a particular power 
contained in the charter is not nece.ssary 
to the proper constitution of tiie bank, 
then the act is unconstitutional ! 

Hitherto it has always been sujiixi.sed 
that the que.stion was of a very ditt'erent 
nature. It has been thought that the 
policy of granting a particular cliarter 
may be materially dependent on the 
structure and organization and powers 
of the proposed in.stitution. liut its 
general constitutionality has never be- 
fore been understood to turn on such 
points. This would be making its con- 
stitutionality depend on .subordinate 
questions; on (juestions of expediency 
and questions of detail; w{>o\\ that 
which one man may tiiiiik ncces.sary, 
and another mav not. If tlie constitu- 



332 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



tional question were made to hinge on 
matters of this kind, how could it ever 
be decided? All would depend on con- 
jecture; on the complexional feeling, on 
the prejudices, on the passions, of indi- 
viduals; on more or less practical skill 
or correct judgment in regard to bank- 
ing operations among those who should 
be the judges ; on the impulse of mo- 
mentary interests, party objects, or per- 
sonal purposes. Put the question in 
this manner to a court of seven judges, 
to decide whether a particular bank was 
constitutional, and it might be doubtful 
whether they could come to any result, 
as they might well hold very various 
opinions on the practical utility of many 
clauses of the charter. 

The question in that case would be, 
not whether the bank, in its general 
frame, character, and objects, was a 
proper instnmient to carry into effect 
the powers of the government, but 
whether the particular powers, direct or 
incidental, conferred on a paiticular 
bank, were better calculated than all 
others to give success to its operations. 
For if not, then the charter, according 
to this sort of reasoning, would be un- 
warranted by the Constitution. This 
mode of construing the Constitution is 
certainly a novel discovery. Its merits 
belong entirely to the President and his 
advisers. According to this rule of in- 
terpretation, if the President should be 
of opinion, that the capital of the bank 
was larger, by a thousand dollars, than 
it ought to be ; or that the time for the 
continuance of the charter was a year 
too long; or that it was unnecessary to 
reciuire it, under penalty, to pay specie; 
or needless to provide for punishing, as 
forgery, the counterfeiting of its bills, — 
either of these reasons would be suffi- 
cient to render the charter, in his opin- 
ion, unconstitutional, invalid, and nuga- 
tory. This is a legitimate conclusion 
from the argument. Such a view of the 
subject has certainly never before been 
taken. This train of reasoning has hith- 
erto not been heard within the halls 
of Congress, nor has any one ventured 
upon it before the tribunals of justice. 
The first exhibition, its first appearance. 



as an argument, is in a message of the 
President of the United States. 

According to that mode of constru- 
ing the Constitution which was adopted 
by Congress in 1791, and approved by 
Washington, and which has been sanc- 
tioned by the judgment of the Supreme 
Court, and affirmed by the practice of 
nearly forty years, the question upon 
the constitutionality of the bank in- 
volves two inquiries. First, whether a 
bank, in its general character, and with 
regard to the general objects with w liich 
banks are usually connected, be, in it- 
self, a fit means, a suitable instrument, 
to carry into effect the powers granted 
to the government. If it be so, then 
the second, and the only other question 
is, whether the powers given in a par- 
ticular charter are appropriate for a 
bank. If they are powers which are 
appropriate for a bank, powers which 
Congress may fairly consider to be use- 
ful to the bank or the country, then 
Congress may confer these powers; be- 
cause the discretion to be exercised in 
framing the constitution of the bank 
belongs to Congress. One man may 
think the granted powers not indispen- 
sable to the particular bank; another 
may suppose them injudicious, or inju- 
rious; a third may imagine that other 
powers, if granted in their stead, would 
be more beneficial; but all these are 
matters of expediency, about which 
men may differ; and the power of de- 
ciding upon them belongs to Congress. 

I again repeat, Sir, that if, for reasons 
of this kind, the President sees fit to 
negative a bill, on the ground of its 
being inexpedient or impolitic, he has 
a right to do so. But remember. Sir, 
that we are now on the constitutional 
question ; remember that the argument 
of the President is, that, because powers 
were given to the bank by the charter 
of 1816 which he thinks unnecessary, 
that charter is unconstitutional. Now, 
Sir, it will hardly be denied, or rather 
it was not denied or doubted before this 
message came to us, that, if therti was 
to be a bank, the powers and duties of 
that bank must be presciibed in the law 
creating it. Nobody but Congress, it 



OF TIIK UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 



r.BZ 



has been thought, could grant these 
powers and privileges, or prescribe their 
limitations. It is true, indeed, that the 
message pretty plainly intimates, that 
the President should have been Jirst 
consulted, and that lie should have had 
the framing of the bill ; but we are not 
yet accustomed to that order of tilings 
in enacting laws, nor do I know a par- 
allel to this claim, thus now brought 
forward, except that, in some peculiar 
cases in England, highly affecting the 
royal prerogative, the assent of tlie mon- 
arch is necessary before either the House 
of Peers, or his Majesty's faithful Com- 
mons, are permitted to act upon the 
subject, or to entertain its consideration. 
But supposing, Sir, that our accustomed 
forms and our republican principles are 
still to be followed, and that a law cre- 
ating a bank is, like all otiier laws, to 
originate with Congress, and that the 
President has nothing to do with it till 
it is presented for his approval, then it 
is clear tliat the powers and duties of a 
proposed bank, and all the terms and 
conditions annexed to it, must, in the 
first place, be settled by Congress. 

This power, if constitutional at all, 
is only constitutional in the hands of 
Congress. Anywliere else, its exercise 
would be plain usurpation. If, then, 
the authority to decide what powers 
ought to be granted to a bank belong to 
(Jongress, and Congress sliall liave exer- 
cised that power, it would seem little 
better than absurd to say, that its act, 
nevertheless, would be unconstitutional 
and invalid, if, in the opinion of a 
tliird party, it iiad misjudged, on a 
question of expediency, in tlie arrange- 
ment of details. According to such a 
mode of reasoning, a mistake in the 
exercise of jurisdiction takes away the 
jurisdiction. If Congress decide right, 
its decision may stand; if it decide 
wrong, its decision is nugatory; and 
whether its decision be right or wrong, 
another is to judge, although the original 
power of making the decision must be 
allowed to be exclusively in Congress. 
This is the end to which the argument 
of the message will conduct its fol- 
lowers. 



Sir, in considering the autliority of 
Congress to invest the bank with the 
particular powers granted to it, the in- 
quiry is not, and cannot be, how apjiro- 
priate these powers are, but wlictli(;r 
they be at all appropriate; whether they 
come within the range of a just and 
honest discretion ; wliether Congress 
may fairly esteem them to be necessary. 
Tlu! question is not. Are they the fitti-st 
means, the best means? or whellicr the 
bank might not be established without 
them ; but the question is, Are they 
such as Congress, bona Jide, may have 
regarded as appropriate to the end? If 
any other rule were to be adopted, notli- 
ing could ever be settled. A law would 
be constitutional to-day and uuconstitu- 
tional to-morrow. Its constitutionality 
would altogether depend upon individual 
opinion on a matterof mere expediency. 
Indeed, such a case as that is now actu- 
ally be'fore us. Mr. INIadison deemed 
the powers given to the bank, in its 
present charter, proper and necessary, 
lie held the bank, therefore, to be con- 
stitutional. But the present President, 
not acknowledging that the power of 
deciding on these points rests with Con- 
gress, nor with Congress and the tiicMi 
President, but setting up his own opin- 
ion as the standard, declares the law 
now in being unconstitutional, because 
the powers granted by it aie, in his esti- 
mation, not necessary and proper. I 
pray to be informed. Sir, wliether, upon 
similar grounds of reasoning, the Presi- 
dent's own scheme for a bank, if Con- 
gress should do so unlikely a thing as to 
adopt it, would not becoiin' unconstitu- 
tional ai.so, if it should so happen that 
his successor should hold his bank in as 
liaht esteem as he holds those establisheil 
under tlie auspices of Wasliington and 
^ladison ? 

If the reasoning of the message be 
well founded, it is clear tliat tln^ charter 
of the existing bank is not a law. Tho 
bank has no legal existence; it is not 
resjKuisible to government; it has no 
authority to act; it is incai>al)le of be- 
ing an agent; the President may treat 
it as a nullity to-morrnw. witlnlraw from 
it all the public deposits, and set alloat 



334 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



all the existing national arrangements 
of revenue and finance. It is enough to 
state these monstrous consequences, to 
show that the doctrine, principles, and 
pretensions of the message ai'e entirely 
inconsistent with a government of laws. 
If that which Congress has enacted, and 
the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be 
not the law of the land, then the reign 
of law has ceased, and tlie reign of 
individual opinion has already begun. 

The President, in his commentary on 
the details of the existing bank charter, 
undertakes to prove that one provision, 
and another provision, is not necessary 
and proper; because, as he thinks, the 
same objects proposed to be accom- 
plished by them might have been better 
attained in another mode; and there- 
fore such provisions are not necessary, 
and so not warranted by the Consti- 
tution. Does not this show, that, ac- 
cording to his own mode of reasoning, 
his own scheme would not be constitu- 
tional, since another scheme, which 
probably most people would think a 
better one, might be substituted for it? 
Perhaps, in any bank charter, there may 
be no provisions which may be justly 
regarded as absolutely indispensable; 
since it is probable that for any of them 
.some others might be substituted. No 
bank, therefore, ever could be estab- 
lished; because there never has been, 
and never could be, any charter, of 
which every provision should appear 
to be indispensable, or necessary and 
proper, in the judgment of every indi- 
vidual. To admit, tlierefore, that there 
may be a constitutional bank, and yet 
to contend for such a mode of judging 
of its provisions and details as the 
message adopts, involves an absurdity. 
Any charter wliich may be framed may 
be taken up, and each power conferred 
by it successively denied, on the ground, 
that, in regard to each, either no such 
power is "necessary or proper" in a 
bank, or, which is the same thing in 
effect, some other power might be sub- 
stituted for it, and supply its place. 
That can never be necessary, in the 
sense in which the message understands 
that term, which may be dispensed with ; 



and it cannot be said that any power 
may not be dispensed with, if there be 
some other which might be substituted 
for it, and which would accomplish the 
same end. Therefore, no bank could 
ever be constitutional, because none 
could be established which should not 
contain some provisions which niight 
liave been omitted, and their place sup- 
plied by others. 

Mr. President, I have understood the 
true and well-established doctrine to be, 
that, after it has been decided that it is 
competent for Congress to establish a 
bank, then it follows that it may create 
such a bank as it judges, in its discre- 
tion, to be best, and invest it with all 
such power as it may deem fit and suita- 
ble; with this limitation, always, that 
all is to be done in the bona fide execu- 
tion of the power to create a bank. If 
the granted powers are approjiriate to 
the professed end, so that the granting 
of them cannot be regarded as usurpa- 
tion of authority by Congress, or an 
evasion of constitutional restrictions, 
under color of establishing a bank, then 
the charter is constitutional, whether 
these powers be thought indispensable 
by others or not, or whether even Con- 
gress itself deemed them absolutely in- 
dispensable, or only thought tiiem fit 
and suitable, or whether they are more 
or less a^ipropriate to their end. It is 
enough that they are appropriate; it is 
enough that they are suited to produce 
the effects designed ; and no comparison 
is to be instituted, in order to try their 
constitutionality, between them and 
others which may be suggested. A case 
analogous to the present is found in the 
constitutional power of Congress over 
the mail. The Constitution says no 
more than that "Congress shall have 
power to establish post-offices and post- 
roads "; and, in the general clause, "all 
powers necessary and proper" to give 
eifect to this. In the execution of this 
power. Congress has protected the mail, 
by providing that robbery of it shall be 
punished with death. Is this infliction 
of capital punishment constitutional? 
Certainly it is not, unless it be both 
"proper and necessary." The President 



OF THE UNITED STATKS BANK BILL. 



335 



may not think it necessary or proper; 
tilt- law, then, according to the system 
of reasoning enforced by the message, 
is of no binding force, and the President 
may disobey it, and refuse to see it exe- 
cuted. 

The truth is, :Mr. President, that if 
the general object, the subject-matter, 
properly belong to Congress, all its in- 
cidents belong to Congress also. If 
Congress is to establish post-offices and 
post-roads, it may, for that end, adopt 
one set of regulations or another; and 
either would be constitutional. So the 
details of one bank are as constitu- 
tional as those of another, if they are 
confined fairly and honestly to the pur- 
pose of organizing the institution, and 
rendering it useful. One bank is as con- 
stitutional as another bank. If Congress 
possesses the power to make a bank, it 
possesses the power to make it efficient, 
and competent to produce the good ex- 
pected from it. It may clothe it with 
all such power and privileges, not other- 
wise inconsistent wdth the Constitution, 
as may be necessary, in its o\m judg- 
ment, to make it what government 
deems it should be. It may confer on 
it such immunities as may induce indi- 
viduals to become stockholders, and to 
furnish the capital; and since the ex- 
tent of these immunities and privileges 
is matter of discretion, and matter of 
opinion, Congress only can decide it, 
because Congress alone can frame or 
grant the charter. A charter, thus 
granted to individuals, becomes a con- 
tract with them, upon their compliance 
with its terms. The bank becomes an 
agent, bound to perform certain duties, 
and entitled to certain stipulated rights 
and privileges, in compensation for the 
])roper discharge of these duties; and 
all these stipulations, so long as they 
are appropriate to the object professed, 
and not repugnant to any other consti- 
tutional injunction, are entirely w^ithin 
the competency of Congress. And yet, 
Sir, the message of the President toils 
through all the commonplace topics of 
monopoly, the right of taxation, the 
suffering of the poor, and the arrogance 
of the rich, with as much painful effort. 



as if one, or another, or all of them, 
had something to do with the constitu- 
tional question. 

What is called the "monopoly" is 
made the subject of repeated reluiarsal, 
in terms of special complaint, liy this 
" monopoly," I suppose, is understood 
the restriction contained in the cliartt-r, 
that Congress shall not, during the 
twenty years, create another l)iink. 
Now, Sir, let me ask, Who would think 
of creating a bank, inviting stockhold- 
ers into it, with large investments, im- 
posing upon it heavy duties, as con- 
nected with the government, receiving 
some millions of dollars as a bonus or 
premium, and yet retaining the power 
of granting, the next day, another char- 
ter, which would destroy the whole value 
of the first? If this be an unconstitu- 
tional restraint on Congress, the Consti- 
tution must be strangely at variance 
with the dictates both of good sense and 
sound morals. Did not the first Bank 
of the United States contain a similar 
restriction? And have not the States 
granted bank charters with a condition, 
that, if the charter sliouM be aceeptetl, 
they would not grant others? States 
have certainly done so; and, in .some 
instances, where no bonus or premium 
was paid at all ; but from the mere de- 
sire to give effect to the charter, by in- 
ducing individuals to accept it and or- 
ganize the institution. The President 
declares that this restriction is not neces- 
sary to the efficiency of the bank; but 
that is the very thing which Congress 
and his predecessor in office were cailetl 
on to decide, and which tliey did decide 
when the one passed and the other ap- 
proved the act. And he has now no 
more authority to pronounce his judg- 
ment on that act than any other iiuli- 
vidual in society. It is not his province 
to decide on the constitutionality of stat- 
utes which Congress has pas.sed, and his 
predecessors apjiroved. 

There is another sentiment in this 
part of the message, whicli we .slioulil 
hardly have expected to find in a pajxT 
which is suppo.sed, whoever may liave 
drawn it up, to have j>asse«l under the 
review of professional characters. The 



336 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 



message declares, that this limitation to 
create no other bank is unconstitutional, 
because, although Congress may use the 
discretion vested in them, "they may 
not limit the discretion of their suc- 
cessors." This reason is almost too 
superficial to require an answer. Every 
one at all accustomed to the considera- 
tion of such subjects knows that every 
Congress can bind its successors to the 
same extent that it can bind itself. The 
power of Congress is always the same ; 
the authority of law always the same. 
It is true, we speak of the Twentieth 
Congress and the Twenty-first Congress ; 
but this is only to denote the period of 
time, or to mark the successive organ- 
izations of the House of Representa- 
tives under the successive periodical 
election of its members. As a politic 
body, as the legislative power of the 
government. Congress is always con- 
tinuous, always identical. A particular 
Congress, as we speak of it, for in- 
stance, the present Congress, can no 
farther restrain itself from doing what 
it may clioose to do at the next session, 
than it can restrain any succeeding Con- 
gress from doing what it may choose. 
Any Congress may repeal the act or law 
of its predecessor, if in its nature it be 
repealable, just as it may repeal its own 
act; and if a law or an act be irrepeal- 
able in its nature, it can no more be re- 
pealed by a subsequent Congress than 
by that which passed it. All this is 
familiar to everybody. And Congress, 
like every other legislature, often passes 
acts which, being in the nature of grants 
or contracts, are irrepealable ever after- 
wards. The message, in a strain of ar- 
gument which it is difficult to treat with 
ordinary respect, declares that this re- 
striction on the power of Congress, as 
to the establishment of other banks, is 
a palpable attempt to amend the Con- 
stitution by an act of legislation. The 
reason on which this observation pur- 
ports to be founded is, tliat Congress, 
by the Constitution, is to have exclusive 
legislation over the District of Colum- 
bia; and when the bank charter de- 
clares tliat Congi'ess will create no new 
bank within the District, it annuls this 



power of exclusive legislation ! I must 
say, that this reasoning hardly rises high 
enough to entitle it to a passing notice. 
It would be doing it too much credit to 
call it plausible. No one needs to be 
informed that exclusive power of legis- 
lation is not unlimited power of legisla- 
tion; and if it were, how can that legis- 
lative power be unlimited that cannot 
restrain itself, that cannot bind itself by 
contract? Whether as a government or 
as an individual, that being is fettered 
and restrained which is not capable of 
binding itself by ordinary obligation. 
Every legislature binds itself, whenever 
it makes a grant, enters into a contract, 
bestows an office, or does any other act 
or thing which is in its nature irrepeal- 
able. And this, instead of detracting 
from its legislative power, is one of the 
modes of exercising that power. The 
legislative power of Congress over the 
District of Columbia would not be full 
and complete, if it might not make just 
such a stipulation as the bank charter 
contains. 

As to the taxing power of the States, 
about which tlie message says so much, 
the proper answer to all it says is, that 
the States possess no power to tax any 
instrument of the government of the 
United States. It was no part of their 
power before the Constitution, and they 
derive no such power from any of its 
provisions. It is nowhere given to them. 
Could a State tax the coin of the United 
States at the mint? Could a State lay a 
stamp tax on the process of the courts of 
the United States, and on custom-house 
papers? Could it tax the transporta- 
tion of the mail, or the ships of war, or 
the ordnance, or the muniments of war, 
of the United States? The reason that 
these cannot be taxed by a State is, that 
they are means and instruments of the 
government of the United States. The 
establislynent of a bank exemjat from 
State taxation takes away no existing 
right in a State. It leaves it all it ever 
possessed. But the complaint is, that 
the bank charter does not confer the 
power of taxation. This, certainly, 
though not a new, (for the same argu- 
ment was urged here,) appears to me 



OF THE UNITED STATES BANK RILL. 



337 



to be a strange, mode of asserting and 
maintaining State rights. The power 
of taxation is a sovereign power; and 
the President and those who think with 
him are of opinion, in a given case, 
tliat this sovereign power should be 
conferred on the States by an act of 
Congress. Tiiere is, if I mistake not, 
Sir, as little compliment to State sov- 
ereignty in this idea, as there is of 
sound constitutional doctrine. Sover- 
eign rights held under the grant of an 
act of Congress present a jiroposition 
quite new in constitutional law. 

The President himself even admits 
that an instrument of the government of 
the United States ought not, as such, to 
be taxed by the States ; yet he contends 
for such a power of taxing property con- 
nected with this instrument, and essen- 
tial to its very being, as places its whole 
existence in the pleasure of the States. 
It is not enough that the States may 
tax all the property of all their ow^n 
citizens, wherever invested or however 
employed. The complaint is, that the 
power of State taxation does not reach 
so far as to take cognizance over persons 
out of the State, and to tax them for a 
franchise lawfully exercised under the 
authority of the United States. Sir, 
when did the power of the States, or 
indeed of any government, go to such 
an extent as that? Cleai'ly never. The 
taxing power of all communities is 
necessarily and justly limited to the 
property of its own citizens, and to the 
property of others, having a distinct 
local existence as property, within its 
jurisdiction; it does not extend to rights 
and franchises, rightly exercised, under 
the authority of other governments, nor 
to persons beyond its jurisdiction. As 
the Constitution has left the taxing 
power of the States, so the bank char- 
ter leaves it. Congress has not under- 
taken either to take away, or to confer, 
a taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to 
restrain it; if it were to do either, 1 
hardly know which of the two would 
be the least excusable. 

I beg leave to repeat, Mr. President, 
that what I have now been considering 
are the President's objections, not to 



the policy or expediency, but to the 
constitutionality, of tlie bank; and nut 
to the cfinstitutionaliiy of any new or 
proposed bunk, but of the bank as it 
now is, and as it has long existed. If 
the President had declined to aj)prove 
this bill because lie thought the original 
charter unwisely granted, and the bank, 
in point of policy and expediency, ob- 
jectionable or mischievous, and in that 
view only had suggested the reasons 
now urged by him, his argument, how- 
ever inconclusive, would have been in- 
telligible, and not, in its wiiole frame 
and scope, inconsistent with all well- 
established first principles. His rejec- 
tion of the bill, in that case, would have 
been, no doubt, an extraordinary exer- 
cise of power; but it would have been, 
nevertheless, the exercise of a power 
belonging to his office, and trusted by 
the Constitution to his discretion. But 
when he puts forth an array of argu- 
ments such as the message employs, not 
against the expediency of the bank, but 
against its constitutional existence, he 
confounds all distinctions, mixes ques- 
tions of policy and questions of right 
together, and turns all constitutional 
restraints into mere matters of opinion. 
As far as its power extends, either in 
its direct effects or as a precedent, the 
message not only unsettles every thing 
which has been settled under tiie (Con- 
stitution, but would show, also, that the 
Constitution itself is utterly incapable 
of any fixed construction or delinile in- 
terpretation, and that there is no possi- 
bility of establishing, by its authority, 
any practical limitations on the jKiwers 
of the respective brandies of tlie govern- 
ment. 

When the message deni(;s, an it does, 
the authority of the Sui>reme Court to 
decide on constitutional questions, it 
effects, so far as the opinion of the 
President and his authority can effect 
it, a conjplete changt; in our govern- 
ment. It does two things: first, it con- 
verts constitutional limitations of power 
into mere matters of opini«jn, and tluui 
it strikes the judicial department, as an 
efficient department, out of our system. 
Hut the message by no means stops even 
22 



338 



THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO. 



at this point. Having denied to Con- 
gress the authority of judging what 
powers may be constitutionally con- 
ferred on a bank, and having erected 
the judgment of the President himself 
into a standard by which to try the con- 
stitutional character of such powers, and 
having denounced the authority of the 
Supreme Court to decide finally on con- 
stitutional questions, the message pro- 
ceeds to claim for the President, not 
the power of approval, but the primary 
power, the power of originating laws. 
The President informs Congress, that 
he would have sent them such a charter, 
if it had been properly asked for, as 
they ought to confer. He very plainly 
intimates, that, in his opinion, the es- 
taVilishment of all laws, of this nature 
at least, belongs to the functions of the 
executive government; and that Con- 
gress ought to have waited for the mani- 
festation of the executive will, before it 
presumed to touch the subject. Such, 
Mr. President, stripped of their dis- 
guises, are the real pretences set up in 
behalf of the executive power in this 
most extraordinary paper. 

Mr. President, we have arrived at a 
new epoch. We are entering on ex- 
periments, with the government and the 
Constitution of the country, hitherto 
untried, and of fearful and appalling 
aspect. This message calls us to the 
contemplation of a future which little 
resembles the past. Its principles are 
at war with all that public opinion has 
sustained, and all which the experience 
of the government has sanctioned. It 
denies first principles ; it contradicts 
truths, heretofore received as indisputa- 
V)le. It denies to the judiciary the in- 
terpretation of law, and claims to divide 
with Congress the power of originating 
statutes. It extends the grasp of execu- 
tive pretension over every power of the 
government. But this is not all. It 
presents the chief magistrate of the 
Union in the attitude of arguing away 



the powers of that government over 
which he has been chosen to preside; 
and adopting for this purpose modes of 
reasoning which, even under the influ- 
ence of all proper feeling towards high 
official station, it is difficult to regard as 
respectable. It appeals to every preju- 
dice which may betray men into a mis- 
taken view of their own interests, and 
to every passion which may lead them 
to disobey the impulses of their under- 
standing. It urges all the specious 
topics of State rights and national en- 
croachment against that which a great 
majority of the States have affirmed to 
be rightful, and in which all of them 
have acquiesced. It sows, in an un- 
sparing manner, the seeds of jealousy 
and ill-will against that government of 
which its author is the official head. It 
raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at 
the very moment when it puts forth 
claims to powers heretofore unknown 
and unheard of. It affects alarm for 
the public freedom, when nothing en- 
dangers that freedom so much as its 
own unparalleled pretences. This, even, 
is not all. It manifestly seeks to in- 
flame the poor against the rich ; it wan- 
tonly attacks whole classes of the peo- 
ple, for the purpose of turning against 
them the prejudices and the resent- 
ments of other classes. It is a state 
paper which finds no topic too exciting 
for its use, no passion too inflammable 
for its address and its solicitation. 

Such is this message. It remains 
now for the people of the United States 
to choose between the principles here 
avowed and their government. These 
cannot subsist together. The one or 
the other must be rejected. If the sen- 
timents of the message shall receive 
general approbation, the Constitution 
will have perished even earlier than the 
moment which its enemies originally 
allowed for the termination of its exist- 
ence. It will not have survived to its 
fiftieth year. 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC DINNER IN THE CITY OF WARIIINCTON, 
ON THE 22d of FEBRUARY, 1832, THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY Of 
WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY. 



[Ok the 2.2d of February, 1832, being the 
centennial birthday of George Washing- 
ton, a number of gentlemen, members of 
Congress and others, from different parts 
of the Union, united in commemorating 
the occasion by a public dinner in the city 
of Washington. 

At the request of the Committee of Ar- 
rangements, Mr. Webster, then a Senator 
from Massachusetts, occupied the chair. 
After the cloth was removed, he addressed 
the company in the following manner.] 

I RISE, Gentlemen, to propose to you 
the name of that great man, in com- 
memoration of whose birth, and in 
honor of whose character and services, 
we are here assembled. 

I am sure that I express a .sentiment 
common to every one present, when I 
say that there is something more than 
ordinarily solemn and affecting in this 
occasion. 

We are met to testify our regard for 
him whose name is intimately blended 
with whatever belongs most essentially 
to the prosperity, the liberty, the free 
institutions, and the renown of our 
country. That name was of power to 
rally a nation, in the houi" of thick- 
thronging public disasters and calam- 
ities; that name shone, amid the storm 
of war, a beacon light, to cheer and 
guide the country's friends; it flamed, 
too, like a meteor, to repel her foes. 
That name, in the days of peace, was a 
loadstone, attracting to itself a whole 
people's confidence, a whole people's 
love, and the whole world's respect. 
That name, descending with all time, 



spreading over the whole earth, and 
uttered in all the languages belonging 
to the tribes and races of men, will for 
ever be pronounced with affectionate 
gratitude by every one in whose brea.st 
there shall arise an aspiration for hu- 
man rights and human liberty. 

We perform this grateful duty, Gen- 
tlemen, at the expiration of a hundred 
years from his birth, near the place, so 
cherished and beloved by him, where 
his dust now reposes, and in the capital 
which bears his own immortal name. 

All experience evinces that human 
sentiments are strongly influenced by 
associations. The recurrence of anni- 
versaries, or of longer periods of time, 
naturally freshens the recollection, and 
deepens the impression, of events with 
which they are historically coimected. 
Renowned places, al.so, have a power to 
awaken feeling, which all acknowledge. 
No American can pass by the fields of 
Bunker Hill. Monmouth, and Camden, 
as if they were ordinary spots on the 
earth's surface. Whoever visits them 
feels the sentiment of love of country 
kindling anew, as if the spirit that be- 
longed to the transactions wliieli have 
rendered the.se places distinguisiied still 
hovered round, with jiower to nu)ve and 
excite all who in future time may ap- 
proach them. 

But neither of the.se sources of emo- 
tion ecpials tlie power with which groat 
moral examples affect the mind. When 
sublime virtues cease to be abstract iouH, 
when they become embodied in human 



340 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



character, and exemplified in human 
conduct, we should be false to our own 
nature, if we did not indulge in the 
spontaneous effusions of our gratitude 
and our admiration. A true lover of 
the virtue of patriotism delights to con- 
template its purest models; and that 
love of country may be well suspected 
which affects to soar so high into the 
regions of sentiment as to be lost and 
absorbed in the abstract feeling, and 
becomes too elevated or too refined to 
glow with fervor in the commendation 
or the love of individual benefactors. 
All this is unnatural. It is as if one 
should be so enthusiastic a lover of 
poetry, as to care nothing for Homer or 
Milton ; so passionately attached to elo- 
quence as to be indifferent to TuUy and 
Chatham; or such a devotee to the arts, 
in such an ecstasy with the elements of 
beauty, proportion, and expression, as 
to regard the masterpieces of Raphael 
and Michael Angelo with coldness or 
contempt. We may be assured, Gentle- 
men, that he who really loves the thing 
itself, loves its finest exhibitions. A 
true friend of his country loves her 
friends and benefactors, and thinks it 
no degradation to commend and com- 
memorate them. The voluntary out- 
pouring of the public feeling, made 
to-day, from the North to the South, 
and from the East to the West, proves 
this sentiment to be both just and 
natural. In the cities and in the vil- 
lages, in the public temples and in the 
family circles, among aU ages and 
sexes, gladdened voices to-day bespeak 
grateful hearts and a freshened recollec- 
tion of the virtues of the Father of his 
Country. And it will be so, in all 
time to come, so long as public virtue is 
itself an object of regard. The ingen- 
uous youth of America will hold up to 
themselves the bright model of Wash- 
ington's example, and study to be what 
they behold; they will contemplate his 
character till all its virtues spread out 
and display themselves to their de- 
lighted vision; as the earliest astrono- 
mers, the shepherds on the plains of 
Babylon, gazed at the stars till they saw 
them form into clusters and constella- 



tions, overpowering at length the eyes 
of the beholders with the united blaze 
of a thousand lights. 

Gentlemen, we are at a point of a 
century from the birth of Washington ; 
and what a century it has been ! Dur- 
ing its course, the human mind has 
seemed to proceed with a sort of ge- 
ometric velocity, accomplishing for hu- 
man intelligence and human freedom 
more than had been done in fives or 
tens of centuries preceding. Wash- 
ington stands at the commencement of 
a new era, as well as at the head of the 
New World. A century from the birth 
of Washington has changed the world. 
The country of Washington has been 
the theatre on which a great part of 
that change has been wrought, and 
Washington himself a principal agent 
by which it has been accomplished. 
His age and his country are equally 
full of wonders ; and of both he is the 
chief. 

If the poetical prediction, uttered a 
few years before his birth, be true; if 
indeed it be designed by Providence 
that the grandest exhibition of human 
character and human aifairs shall be 
made on this theatre of the Western 
world ; if it be true that, 

"The four first acts already past, 
A fifth shall close the drama with the day ; 
Time's noblest offspring is the last " ; — 

how could this imposing, swelling, final 
scene be appropriately opened, how could 
its intense interest be adequately sus- 
tained, but by the introduction of just 
such a character as our Washington? 

Washington had attained his man- 
hood when that spark of liberty was 
struck out in his own country, which 
has since kindled into a flame, and shot 
its beams over the earth. In the flow 
of a century from his birth, the world 
has changed in science, in arts, in the 
extent of commerce, in the improve- 
ment of navigation, and in all that re- 
lates to the civilization of man. But it 
is the spirit of human freedom, the new 
elevation of individual man, in his 
moral, social, and political character, 
leading the whole long train of other 
improvements, which has most remark- 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



341 



ably distinguished the era. Society, in 
this century, has not made its progress, 
like Chinese skill, by a greater acute- 
ness of ingenuity in trifles; it has not 
merely lashed itself to an increased 
speed round the old circles of thought 
and action ; but it has assumed a new 
character; it has raised itself from he- 
nealh governments to a participation in 
governments; it has mixed moral and 
political objects with the daily pursuits 
of individual men; and, with a freedom 
and strength before altogether unknown, 
it has applied to these objects the whole 
power of the human understanding. It 
has been the era, in short, when the 
social principle has triumphed over the 
feudal principle; when society has 
maintained its rights against military 
power, and established, on foundations 
never hereafter to be shaken, its com- 
petency to govern itseK. 

It was the extraordinary fortune of 
Washington, that, having been in- 
trusted, in revolutionarj'' times, with 
the supreme military command, and 
having fulfilled that trust with equal 
renown for wisdom and for valor, he 
should be placed at the head of the first 
government in which an attempt was to 
be made on a large scale to rear the 
fabric of social order on the basis of a 
written constitution and of a pure rep- 
resentative principle. A government 
was to be established, without a throne, 
without an aristocracy, without castes, 
orders, or privileges; and this govern- 
ment, instead of being a democracy, 
existing and acting within the walls of 
a single city, was to be extended over a 
vast country, of different climates, in- 
terests, and habits, and of various com- 
munions of our common Christian faith. 
The experiment certainly was entirely 
new. A popular government of this 
extent, it was evident, could be framed 
only by carrying into full effect the 
principle of representation or of dele- 
gated power; and the world was to see 
whether society could, by the strengih 
of this principle, maintain its own 
peace and good government, carry for- 
ward its own great interests, and con- 
duct itself to political renown and glory. 



By the benignity of Providence, thiM 
experiment, so full of interest to iis 
and to our posterity for ever, so full of 
interest, indeed, to the world in its pres- 
ent generation and in all its generations 
to come, was suffered to commence 
under the guidance of Washington. 
Destined for this high career, he wa.s 
fitted for it by wisdom, by virtue, by 
patriotism, by discretion, by whatever 
can inspire confidence in man toward 
man. In entering on the untried 
scenes, early disappointment and the 
premature extinction of all hope of 
success would have been certain, had it 
not been that there did exist throughout 
the country, in a most extraordinary 
degree, an unwavering trust in him 
who stood at the helm. 

I remarked. Gentlemen, that the whole 
world was and is interested in the result 
of this experiment. And is it not so ? 
Do we deceive ourselves, or is it true 
that at this moment the career which 
this government is running is among the 
most attractive objects to the civilized 
world ? Do we deceive ourselves, or is 
it true that at this moment that love of 
liberty and that understanding of its 
true principles which are flying over the 
whole earth, as on the wings of all the 
winds, are really and truly of American 
origin ? 

At the period of the birth of "Wash- 
ington, there existed in Europe no polit- 
ical liberty in large communities, except 
in the provinces of IlolUind, and except 
that England herself had set a great ex- 
ample, so far as it went, by her glorious 
Revolution of 1G88. Everywhere el.se. 
despotic power was predominant, and 
the feudal or military principle held the 
mass of mankind in hopeless bondage. 
One half of Europe was crushed beneath 
the Bourbon sceptre, and no conception 
of political liberty, no hope even of re- 
ligious toleration, existed among Unit 
nation which w;us America'.s first ally. 
The king was the state, the king was 
the country, th.; king was all. There 
was one king, widi jxiwer not derived 
from his people, and too high to be 
questioned; and the rest were all sub- 
jects, with no political right but obedi- 



^ 



342 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



ence. All above was intangible power, 
all below quiet subjection. A recent oc- 
currence in the French Chambers shows 
us how public opinion on these subjects 
is changed. A minister had spoken of 
the "king's subjects." " There are no 
subjects," exclaimed hundreds of voices 
at once, " in a country where the people 
make the king! " 

Gentlemen, the spirit of human lib- 
\ erty and of free government, nurtured 
' and grown into strength and beavity in 
America, has stretched its course into 
the midst of the nations. Like an ema- 
nation from Heaven, it has gone forth, 
and it will not return void. It must 
change, it is fast changing, the face of 
the earth. Our great, our high duty is 
to show, in our own example, that this 
spirit is a spirit of health as well as a 
spirit of power ; that its benignity is as 
great as its strength; that its efficiency 
to secure individual rights, social rela- 
tions, and moral order, is equal to the 
irresistible force with which it prostrates 
principalities and powers.^''^ The world, 
at this moment, is regarding us with a 
willing, but something of a fearful ad- 
miration. Its deep and awful anxiety 
is to learn whether free states may be 
stable, as well as free; whether popular 
power may be trusted, as well as feared; 
in short, whether wise, regular, and vir- 
tuous self-government is a vision for the 
contemplation of theorists, or a truth 
established, illustrated, and brought into 
practice in the country of Washington. 

Gentlemen, for the earth which we 
inhabit, and the whole circle of the sun, 
for all the unborn races of mankind, we 
seem to hold in our hands, for their 
weal or woe, the fate of this experi- 
ment. If we fail, who shall venture the 
repetition ? If our example shall prove 
to be one, not of encouragement, but of 
terror, not fit to be imitated, but fit 
only to be shunned, where else shall the 
world look for free models ? If this 
great Western Sun be struck out of the 
firmament, at what other fountain shall 
the lamp of liberty hereafter be lighted ? 
What other orb shall emit a ray to glim- 
mer, even, on the darkness of the world V 
There is no danger of our overrating 



or overstating the important part which 
we are now acting in human affairs. It 
should not flatter our personal self-re- 
spect, but it should reanimate our patri- 
otic virtues, and inspire us with a deeper 
and more solemn sense, both of our priv- 
ileges and of our duties. We cannot 
wish better for our country, nor for the 
world, than that the same spirit which 
influenced Washington may influence all 
who succeed him; and that the same 
blessing from above, which attended his 
efforts, may also attend theirs. 

The principles of Washington's ad- 
ministration are not left doubtful. They 
are to be found in the Constitution it- 
self, in the great measures recommended 
and approved by him, in his speeches to 
Congress, and in that most interesting 
paper, his Farewell Address to the Peo- 
ple of the United States. The success 
of the government under his administra- 
tion is the highest proof of the sound- 
ness of these principles. And, after an 
experience of thirty-five years, what is 
there which an enemy could condemn ? 
What is there which either his friends, 
or the friends of the country, could wish 
to have been otherwise ? I speak, of 
course, of great measures and leading 
principles. 

In the first place, all his measures 
were right in their intent. He stated 
the whole basis of his own great charac- 
ter, when he told the country, in the 
homely phrase of the proverb, that hon- 
esty is the best policy. One of the most 
striking things ever said of him is, that 
" /ie cJiamjed mankind's ideas of political 
greatness.'"'^ To commanding talents, 
and to success, the common elements 
of such greatness, he added a disregard 
of self, a spotlessness of motive, a steady 
submission to every public and private 
duty, which threw far into the shade 
the whole crowd of vulgar great. The 
object of his regard was the whole coun- 
try. No part of it was enough to fill his 
enlarged patriotism. His love of glory, 
so far as that may be supposed to have 
influenced him at all, spurned every thing 
short of general approbation. It would 
have been nothing to him, that his par- 

1 See Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 122, 123. 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



843 



dissolving 
ington's 



tisans or his favorites outnumbered, or 
outvoted, or outmanaged, or outclam- 
ored, those of other leaders. He had no 
favorites; he rejected all partisanship; 
and, acting honestly for the universal 
good, he deserved, what he has so richly- 
enjoyed, the universal love. 

His principle it was to act right, and 
to trust the people for support ; his prin- 
ciple it was not to follow the lead of 
sinister and selfish ends, nor to rely on 
the little arts of party delusion to obtain 
})ublic sanction for such a course. Born 
for his country and for the world, he did 
not give up to party what was meant 
for mankind. The consequence is, that 
his fame is as durable as his principles, 
as lasting as truth and virtue them- 
selves. While the hundreds whom par- 
ty excitement, and temporary circum- 
stances, and casual combinations, have 
raised into transient notoriety, sink 
again, like thin bubbles, bursting and 
into the gTeat ocean. Wash- 
fame is like the rock which 
bounds that ocean, and at whose feet its 
billows are destined to break harmlessly 
for ever. 

The maxims upon which Washington 
conducted our foreign relations were few 
and simple. The first was an entire and 
indisputable impartiality towards for- 
eifirn states. He adhered to this rule of 
public conduct, against very strong in- 
ducements to depart from it, and when 
the popularity of the moment seemed to 
favor such a departure. In the next 
place, he maintained true dignity and 
unsullied honor in all communications 
with foreign states. It was among the 
high duties devolved upon him, to intro- 
duce our new government into the circle 
of civilized states and powerful nations. 
Not arrogant or assuming, with no un- 
becoming or supercilious bearing, he yet 
exacted for it from all others entire and 
})unctilious respect. He demanded, and 
lie obtained at once, a standing of per- 
fect equality for his country in the soci- 
ety of nations; nor was there a prince 
or potentate of his day, who.se personal 
character carried with it, into the inter- 
course of other states, a greater degree 
of respect and veneration. 



He regarded other nations only as they 
stood in political relations to ua. With 
their internal affairs, their i>()litical j»;ir- 
ties and dissensions, lie scrupulously ab- 
stained from all interference; and, on 
the other hand, he repelled with spirit 
all such interference by others with us 
or our concerns. His sternest rebuke, 
the most indignant measure of his whole 
administration, was aimed against such 
an attempted interference. He felt it a,s 
an attempt to wound the national honor, 
and resented it accordingly. 

The reiterated admonitions in his 
Farewell Address show his deep fears 
that foreign influence would insinuate 
itself into our counsels through the chan- 
nels of domestic dissension, and obtain 
a sympathy with our own temporary par- 
ties. Against all such dangers, he most 
earnestly entreats the country t<3 guard 
itself. He appeals to its patriotism, to its 
self-respect, to its own honor, to every 
consideration connected with its welfare 
and happiness, to resist, at the very be- 
ginning, all tendencies towards such con- 
nection of foreign interests with our 
own affairs. With a tone of earnestness 
nowhere else found, even in his last af- 
fectionate farewell advice to his country- 
men, he says, "Against the insidious 
wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you 
to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jeal- 
ousy of a free people ought to be con- 
slantli/ a.v,'ake\ since history and experi- 
ence prove, that foreign influence is one 
of the most baneful foes of republican 
government." 

Lastly, on the subject of foreign rela- 
tions, Washington never forgot that we 
had interests peculiar to our.selvt's. 'I'he 
primary political concerns of Europe, he 
saw, did not affect us. We had nothing 
to do with her balance of i>owt'r, lier 
family compacts, or her successions to 
thrones. We were ])la(ed in a condition 
favorable to neutrality during Kuro|H!an 
wars, and to the enjoyment of all 
the great advantages of that relation. 
" Why, then," he asks us, " wliy forego 
the advantages of so peculiar a .situa- 
tion? Why quit our own to stand u|>on 
foreign ground? Why, by inU'rweaving 
our destiny with that of any i>art of 



344 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



Europe, entangle ouv peace and pros- 
perity in the toils of European ambition, 
rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? " 
Indeed, Gentlemen, Washington's 
Farewell Address is full of truths im- 
portant at all times, and particularly 
deserving consideration at the present. 
With a sagacity which brought the fu- 
ture before him, and made it like the 
present, he saw and pointed out the 
dangers that even at this moment most 
imminently threaten us. I hardly know 
how a greater service of that kind 
could now be done to the community, 
than by a renewed and wide diffusion 
of that admirable paper, and an ear- 
nest invitation to every man in the 
country to reperuse and consider it. 
Its political maxims are invaluable ; its 
exhortations to love of country and 
to brotherly affection among citizens, 
touching; and the solemnity with which 
it urges the observance of moral duties, 
and impresses the power of religious 
obligation, gives to it the highest char- 
acter of truly disinterested, sincere, pa- 
rental advice. 

The domestic policy of Washington 
found its pole-star in the avowed objects 
of the Constitution itself. He sought so 
to administer that Constitution, as to 
form a more perfect union, establish 
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, pro- 
vide for the common defence, promote 
the general welfare, and secure the bless- 
ings of liberty. These were objects in- 
teresting, in the highest degree, to the 
whole country, and his policy embraced 
the whole country. 

Among his earliest and most impor- 
tant duties was the organization of the 
government itself, the choice of his con- 
fidential advisers, and the various ap- 
pointments to office. This duty, so 
important and delicate, when a whole 
government was to be organized, and all 
its offices for the first time filled, was 
yet not difficult to him ; for he had no 
sinister ends to accomplish, no clamorous 
partisans to gi-atify, no pledges to re- 
deem, no object to he regarded but simply 
the public good. It was a plain, straight- 
forward matter, a mere honest choice of 
good men for the public service. 



Ilis ovra singleness of purpose, his 
disinterested patriotism, were evinced 
by the selection of his first Cabinet, and 
by the manner in which he filled the 
seats of justice, and other places of high 
trust. He sought for men fit for offices ; 
not for offices which might suit men. 
Above personal considerations, above . 
local considerations, above party consid- 
erations, he felt that he could only dis- 
charge the sacred trust which the country 
had placed in his hands, by a diligent 
inquiry after real merit, and a consci- 
entious preference of virtue and talent. 
The whole country was the field of his 
selection. He explored that whole field, 
looking only for whatever it contained 
most worthy and distinguished. He was, 
indeed, most successful, and he deserved 
success for the purity of his motives, the 
liberality of his sentiments, and his en- 
larged and manly policy. 

Washington's administration estab- 
lished the national credit, made pro- 
vision for the public debt, and for that 
patriotic army whose interests and wel- 
fare were always so dear to him ; and, 
by laws wisely framed, and of admira- 
ble effect, raised the commerce and nav- 
igation of the country, almost at once, 
from depression and ruin to a state of 
prosperity. Nor were his eyes open to 
these interests alone. He viewed with 
equal concern its agriculture and manu- 
factures, and, so far as they came within 
the regular exercise of the powers of 
this government, they experienced re- 
gard and favor. 

It should not be omitted, even in this 
slight reference to the general measures 
and general principles of the first Presi- 
dent, that he saw and felt the full value 
and importance of the judicial depait- 
ment of the government. An upright 
and able administration of the laws he 
held to be alike indispensable to private 
happiness and public liberty. The tem- 
ple of justice, in his opinion, was a 
sacred place, and he would profane and 
pollute it who should call any to minister 
in it, not spotless in character, not in- 
corruptible in integrity, not competent 
by talent and learning, not a fit object 
i of unliesitating trust. 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



345 



Among other admonitions, Washing- 
ton has left us, in his last communi- 
cation to his countn% an exhortation 
against the excesses of party spirit. A 
fire not to be quenched, he yet conjures 
us not to fan and feed the flame. Un- 
doubtedly. Gentlemen, it is the greatest 
danger of our system and of our time. 
Undoubtedly, if that system should be 
overthrown, it will be the work of ex- 
cessive party spirit, acting on the gov- 
ernment, which is dangerous enough, 
or acting in the government, which is 
a thousand times more dangerous; for 
government then becomes nothing but 
organized party, and. in the strange 
vicissitudes of human affairs, it may 
come at last, perhaps, to exhibit the 
singular paradox of government itself 
being in opposition to its own powers, 
at war with the very elements of its own 
existence. Such cases are hopeless. As 
men may be protected against murder, 
but cannot be guarded against suicide, 
so government may be shielded from the 
assaidts of external foes, but nothing 
can save it when it chooses to lay violent 
hands on itself. 

Finally, Gentlemen, there was in the 
breast of Washington one sentiment so 
deeply felt, so constantly uppermost, 
that no proper occasion escaped without 
its utterance. From the letter which he 
signed in behalf of the Convention when 
the Constitution was sent out to the 
people, to the moment when he put his 
hand to that last paper in which he 
addressed his countr^nnen, the Union, — 
the Union was the great object of his 
thoughts. In that first letter he tells 
them that, to him and his brethren of 
the Convention, union appears to be the 
greatest interest of every true American ; 
and in that last paper he conjures them 
to regard that unity of government 
which constitutes them one people as 
the very palladium of their prosperity 
and safety, and the security of liberty 
itself. He regarded the union of these 
States less as one of our blessings, than 
as the great treasure-house which con- 
tained them all. Here, in his judgment, 
was the great magazine of all our means 
of prosperity; here, as he thought, and 



as every true American still thinks, are 
deposited all our animating prospects, 
all our solid hoj^es for future jji 
He has taught us to maintain til 
not by seeking to enlarge the powers of 
the government, on the one hand, nor 
by surrendering them, on the other; but 
by an administration of them at once 
firm and moderate, pursuing oV>jects 
truly national, and carried on in a spirit 
of justice and equity-. 

The extreme solicitude for the preser- 
vation of the Union, at all times mani- 
fested by him, shows not only the opin- 
ion he entertained of its importance, but 
his clear perception of those causes wliich 
were likely to spring up to endanger it, 
and which, if once they shoidd over- 
throw the present system, would leave 
little hope of any future beneficial re- 
union. Of all the presumptions indulged 
by presumptuous man, that is one of the 
rashest which looks for repeated and 
favorable opportunities for the deliberate 
establishment of a united government 
over distinct and widely extended com- 
munities. Such a thing has hapi>ened 
once in human affairs, and but once; 
the event stands out as a prominent ex- 
ception to all ordinary history ; and un- 
less we suppose ourselves running into 
an age of miracles, we may not expect 
its repetition. 

. Washington, therefore, could regard, 
and did regard, nothing as of paramount 
political interest, but the integrity of 
the Union itself. With a united govern- 
ment, well administered, he saw that we 
had nothing to fear; and without it, 
nothing to hope. The sentiment is just, 
and its momentous truth should sol- 
emnly impress the whole country. U we 
might regard our country as personateil 
in the spirit of Washington, if we might 
consider him as representing her, in her 
past renown, her present piosjicrity, and 
her future career, and a-s iu tliat i-liarac- 
ter demanding of us all to account for 
our conduct, as political men or as pri- 
vate citizens, how sliould ho answer him 
who has ventured to talk of disunion 
and dismemberment"? Or how slioultl 
he answer him who dwells jHTp^tually 
on local interests, and fans ever}- kind- 



346 



THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 



ling flame of local prejudice? How 
should he answer him who would array 
State against State, interest against in- 
terest, and party against party, care- 
less of the continuance of that vnity 
of government which constitutes us one 
people ? 

The political prosperity which this 
country has attained, and which it now 
enjoys, has been acquired mainly through 
the instrumentality of the present gov- 
ernment. While this agent contin- 
ues, the capacity of attaining to still 
higher degrees of prosperity exists also. 
AVe have, while this lasts, a political 
life capable of beneficial exertion, with 
power to resist or overcome misfortunes, 
to sustain us against the ordinary acci 
dents of human affairs, and to promote, 
by active efforts, every public interest. 
But dismemberment strikes at the very 
being which preserves these faculties. 
It would lay its rude and ruthless hand 
on this great agent itself. It would 
sweep away, not only what we possess, 
but all power of regaining lost, or ac- 
quiring new possessions. It would leave 
the country, not only bereft of its pros- 
perity and happiness, but without limbs, 
or organs, or faculties, by which to exert 
itself hereafter in the pursuit of that 
prosperity and happiness. 

Other misfortunes may be borne, or 
their effects overcome. If disastrous 
war should sweep our commerce from 
the ocean, another generation may re- 
new it ; if it exhaust our treasury, future 
industry may replenish it ; if it desolate 
and lay waste our fields, still, under a 
new cultivation, they will grow green 
again, and ripen to future harvests. It 
were but a trifle even if the walls of 
yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its 
lofty pillars should fall, and its gor- 
geous decorations be all covered by the 
dust of the valley. All these might be 
rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the 
fabric of demolished government? Who 
shall rear again the well-proportioned 
columns of constitutional liberty? Who 



shall frame together the skilful archi- A 
tecture which unites national sovereignty " 
with State rights, individual security, 
and public prosperity? No, if these 
columns fall, they will be raised not 
aaain. Like the Coliseum and the Par- 
thenon, they will be destined to a mourn- 
ful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer 
tears, however, will flow over them, than 
were ever shed over the monuments of 
Roman or Grecian art ; for they will be 
the remnants of a more glorious edifice 
than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edi- 
fice of constitutional American liberty. 
But let us hope for better things. 
Let us trust in that gracious Being who 
has hitherto held our country as in the 
hollow of his hand. Let us trust to the 
virtue and the intelligence of the people, 
and to the efficacy of religious obliga- 
tion. Let us trust to the influence of 
Washington's example. Let us hope 
that that fear of Heaven which expels 
all other fear, and that regard to duty 
which transcends all other regard, may 
influence public men and private citizens, ' 
and lead our country still onward in her 
happy career. Full of these gratifying 
anticipations and hopes, let us look for- 
ward to the end of that century which 
is now commenced. A hundred years 
hence, other disciples of Washington 
will celebrate his birth, with no less of 
sincere admiration than we now com- 
memorate it. When they shall meet, as 
we now meet, to do themselves and him 
that honor, so surely as they shall see 
the blue summits of his native moun- 
tains rise in the horizon, so surely as 
they shall behold the river on whose 
banks he lived, and on whose banks he 
rests, still flowing on toward the sea, so 
surely may they see, as we now see, the 
flag of the Union floating on the top 
of the Capitol; and then, as now, may 
the sun in his course visit no land more 
free, more happy, more lovely, than this 
our own country ! 

Gentlemen, I propose — "The Mem- 
ory OF George Washington." 



EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS 

FROM OFFICE. 



FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, 
HELD AT WORCESTER (MASS.), ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 1832. 



I BEGIN, Sir, with the subject of re- 
movals from office for opinion's sake, 
one of the most signal instances, as I 
think, of the attempt to extend execu- 
tive povv'er. This has been a leading 
measure, a cardinal point, in the course 
of the administration. It has proceeded, 
from the first, on a settled proscription 
for political opinions; and this system 
it has carried into operation to the full 
extent of its ability. The President 
has not only filled all vacancies with his 
own friends, generally those most distin- 
guished as personal partisans, but he 
has turned out political opponents, and 
thus created vacancies, in order that he 
might fill them with his own friends. 
1 think the number of removals and ap- 
pointments is said to be two thoumnd. 
While the administration and its friends 
have been attempting to circumscribe 
and to decry the powers belonging to 
other branches, it has thus seized into 
its own hands a patronage most per- 
nicious and corrupting, an authority 
over men's means of living most tyran- 
nical and odious, and a power to punish 
free men for political opinions .alto- 
gether intolerable. 

You will remember. Sir, that the 
Constitution says not one word about 
the President's power of removal from 
othce. It is a power raised entirely by 
construction. It is a constructive power, 
introduced at first to meet cases of ex- 
treme public necessity. It has now be- 
come coextensive with the executive 



will, calling for no necessity, requiring 
no exigency for its exercise ; to be em- 
ployed at .all times, without control, 
without question, without responsibility. 
When the question of the President's 
power of remov.al w.as debated in the 
first Congress, those who argued for it 
limited it to extreme cases. Cases, they 
said, might arise, in which it would be 
absolutely necessary to remove an officer 
before the Senate could be assembled. 
An officer might become ins.ane; he 
might abscond ; and from tliesi> and 
other supposable cases, it was said, the 
public service might materially suffer if 
the President could not remove tlie in- 
cumbent. And it was further said, that 
there was little or no danger . of tlio 
abuse of the power for party or personal 
objects. No President, it was thought, 
would ever commit such an outrage on 
public opinion. Mr. Madison, who 
thought the power ought to exist, and 
to be exercised in cases of high necessity, 
declared, nevertheless, that if a Presi- 
dent should resort to tlie power wiien 
not required by any public exigency, 
and mi'rely for personal objects, he would 
deserve to be impeaclieil. By a very small 
majority, — I think, in the Senate, by 
the casting vote of the Vice-President, 
— Congress decided in favor of the ex- 
istence of the power of removal, iiixm 
the grounds which 1 have mentioned; 
granting the power in a case of clear 
and jvb.solute necessity, and denying its 
existence everywhere else. 



348 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 



Mr. President, we should recollect 
that this question Avas discussed, and 
thus decided, when Washington was in 
the executive chair. Men knew that 
in his hands the power would not be 
abused; nor did they conceive it pos- 
sible that any of his successors could so 
far depart from his great and bi-ight 
example, as, by abuse of the power, and 
by carrying that abuse to its utmost ex- 
tent, to change the essential character 
of the executive from that of an impar- 
tial guardian and executor of the laws 
into that of the chief dispenser of party 
rewards. Three or four instances of 
removal occurred in the first twelve years 
of the government. At the commence- 
ment of Mr. Jefferson's administration, 
he made several others, not without pro- 
ducing much dissatisfaction ; so much 
so, that he thought it expedient to give 
reasons to the people, in a public paper, 
for even the limited extent to which he 
had exercised the power. He rested his 
justification on particular circumstances 
and peculiar grounds; which, whether 
substantial or not, showed, at least, that 
he did not regard the power of re- 
moval as an ordinary power, still less as 
a mere arbitrary one, to be used as he 
pleased, for whatever ends he pleased, 
and without responsibility. As far as I 
remember. Sir, after the early part of 
Mr. Jefferson's administration, hardly 
an instance occurred for near thirty 
years. If there were any instances, 
they were few. But at the commence- 
ment of the present administration, the 
precedent of these previous cases was 
seized on, and a system, a regular plan 
of ynvernment, a well-considered scheme 
for the maintenance of party power by 
the patronage of ofiice, and this pat- 
ronage to be created by general removal, 
was adopted, and has been carried into 
full operation. Indeed, before General 
Jackson's inauguration, the party put 
the system into practice. In the last 
session of Mr. Adams's administration, 
the friends of General Jackson consti- 
tuted a majority in the Senate; and 
nominations, made by Mr. Adams to 
fill vacancies which had occurred in the 
ordinary way, were postponed, by this 



majority, beyond the 3d of March, /'<r 
the purpose, openly avowed, of giving the 
nominations to General Jackson. A 
nomination for a judge of the Supreme 
Court, and many others of less magni- 
tude, were thus disposed of. 

And what did we witness, Sir, when 
the administration actually connnenced, 
in the full exercise of its authority '■ 
One universal sweep, one undistin- 
guishing blow, levelled against all vvho 
were not of the successful party. No 
worth, public or private, no service, civil 
or military, was of power to resist the 
relentless greediness of proscription. 
Soldiers of the late war, soldiers of the 
Revolutionary war, the very contem- 
poraries of the independence of the 
country, all lost their situations. No 
office was too high, and none too low; 
for office was the spoil, and " a/Z the 
spoils,^^ it is said, "belong to the vic- 
tors " ! If a man holding an office neces- 
sary for his daily support had present- 
ed himself covered with the scars of 
wounds received in every battle, from 
Bunker Hill to Yorktown, these would 
not have protected him against this reck- 
less rapacity. Nay, Sir, if Warren him- 
self had been among the living, and 
had possessed any office under govern- 
ment, high or low, he would not have 
been suffered to hold it a single hour, 
unless he could show that he had strictly 
complied with the party statutes, and 
had put a well-marked party collar 
round his own neck. Look, Sir, to the 
case of the late venerable jNIajor Melville. 
He was a personification of the spirit 
of 1776, one of the earliest to venture 
in the cause of liberty. He was of the 
Tea Party ; one of the very first to ex- 
pose himself to British power. And his 
whole life was consonant with this, its 
beginning. Always ardent in the cause 
of liberty, always a zealous friend to his 
country, always acting with the party 
which he supposed cherished the genuine 
republican spirit most fervently, always 
estimable and respectable in private life, 
he seemed armed against this miserable 
petty tyranny of party as far as man 
could be. But he felt its blow, and he 
fell. He held an office in the custom- 



EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 



349 



house, and had held it for a long course 
of years; and he was deprived of it, as 

if unworthy to serve the country which 
he loved, and for whose liberties, in tlie 
vigor of his early manhood, he had 
thrust himself into the very jaws of its 
enemies. There was no mistake in the 
matter. His character, his standing, 
liis Revolutionary services, wei-e all 
well known ; but they were known to no 
[luriwse; they weighed not one feather 
against party pretensions. It cost no 
pains to remove him; it cost no com- 
punction to wring his aged heart with 
this retribution from his country for his 
services, his zeal, and his fidelity. Sir, 
you will bear witness,^ that, when his 
successor was nominated to the Senate, 
and the Senate were informed who liad 
been removed to make way for that nom- 
ination, its members were struck with 
horror. They had not conceived the ad- 
ministration to be capable of such a 
tiling ; and yet they said, What can we do? 
The man is removed; we cannot recall 
him ; we can only act upon the nomina- 
tion before us. Sir, you and I thought 
otherwise; and I rejoice that we did 
think otherwise. We thought it our duty 
to resist the nomination to fill a vacancy 
thus created. We thought it our duty 
to oppose this proscription, when, and 
where, and as, we constitutionally could. 
We besought the Senate to go with us, 
and to take a stand before the country on 
this great question. We invoked them 
to try the deliberate sense of the people; 
to ti-ust themselves before the tribunal of 
public opinion; to resist at first, to resist 
at last, to resist always, the introduction 
of this unsocial, this mischievous, this 
dangerous, this belligerent principle into 
the practice of the government. 

^Ir. President, as far as 1 know, there 
is no civilized country on earth, in 
which, on a change of rulers, there is 
such an inqumtion for spoil as we have 
witnessed in this free republic. The 
Inaugural Address of 1829 spoke of a 
searching operation of government. The 
most searching operation, Sir, of the 

1 Hon. Nathaniel Silsbee, President of the 
Convention, was Mr. \Vul)sler's colleague in the 
Senate at the time referred to. 



present admini.stration, has been its 
search for otfice and place. When, Sir, 
did any English minister. Whig or 
Tory, ever make such an inquest? 
When did he ever go down to low- 
water mark, to make an ousting of 
tide-waiters? When did he ever take 
away the daily bread of weighers, and 
gangers, and measm-ers? When did he 
ever go into the villages, to disturb the 
little iX)st-offices, the mail contracts, and 
every thing else in the remotest degree 
connected with government? Sir, a 
British minister who .should do this, 
and should afterwards sliow his head in 
a British House of Commons, would be 
received by a universal hi.ss. 

I have little to say of the selections 
made to fill vacancies thus created. • It 
is true, however, and it is a natural 
consequence of the system which has 
been acted on, that, within the last 
three years, more nominations liave 
been rejected on the ground of unfitness, 
than in all the preceding forty years of 
the government. And the.se nomina- 
tions, you know, Sir, could not have 
been rejected but by votes of the 
President's own friends. The cases 
were too strong to be resisted. Even 
party attachment could not stand tliem. 
In some not a third of the Senate, in 
others not ten votes, and in others not a 
single vote, could be obtained; an<l this 
for no particular reason known only to 
the Senate, but on general groinids of 
the want of character and qualifications; 
on grounds known to everybody else, as 
well as to the Senate. All this. Sir, 
is perfectly natural and consistent. The 
same party selfishness which drives good 
men out of office will i)ush bad men in. 
Political proscription leads necessarily to 
the filling of offices with incouq>i4('nt 
persons, and to a consequent malexecu- 
tion of official duties. .\nd in my <i]>in- 
ion, Sir, this principle of claiming a, 
monopoly of office by tlie riglit of con- 
quest, unless the public shall efTfolually 
rebuke and restrain it, will entirely 
change the character of our government. 
It elevates party above country; it for- 
gets the common weal in the pui-suit of 
personal emolument; it tends to form, 



350 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 



it does form, we see that it has formed, 
a political combination, united by no 
common principles or opinions among 
its members, either upon the powers of 
the government, or the true policy of 
the country; but held together simply 
as an association, under the charm of a 
popular head, seeking to maintain pos- 
session of the government by a vigorous 
exercise of its patronage; and for this 
purpose agitating, and alarming, and 
distressing social life by the exercise of 
a tyrannical pnrty proscription. Sir, if 
this course of things cannot be checked, 
good men will grow tired of the exercise 
of political privileges. They will have 
nothing to do with popular elections. 
They will see that such elections are but 
a mere selfish contest for office; and 
they will abandon the government to 
the scramble of the bold, the daring, 
and the desperate. 

It seems, Mr. President, to be a pe- 
culiar and singular characteristic of the 
present administration, that it came 
into power on a cry against abuses, 
which did not exist, and then, as soon as 
it was in, as if in mockery of the per- 
ception and intelligence of the people, 
it created those very abuses, and carried 
them to a great length. Thus the chief 
magistrate himself, before he came into 
the chair, in a formal public paper, 
denounced the practice of appointing 
members of Congress to office. He said, 
that, if that practice continued, corrup- 
tion would become the order of the day; 
and, as if to fasten and nail down his 
own consistency to that point, he de- 
clared that it was due to himself to prac- 
tise what he recommended to others. Yet, 
Sir, as soon as he was in power, these 
fastenings gave way, the nails all flew, 
and the promised consistency remains a 
striking proof of the manner in which 
political assurances are sometimes ful- 
filled. He has already appointed more 
members of Congress to office than any 
of his predecessors, in the longest period 
of administration. Before his time, 
there was no reason to complain of these 
appointments. They had not been nu- 
merous under any administration. Un- 
der this, they have been numerous, and 



some of them such as may well justify 
complaint. 

Another striking instance of the ex- 
hibition of th^ same characteristics may 
be found in the sentiments of the Inau- 
gural Address, and in the subsequent 
practice, on the subject of interfering 
with the freedom of elections. The Inau- 
gural Address declares, that it is neces- 
sary to reform abuses which have brought 
the patronage of the government into con- 
fiicl tvith the freedom of elections. And 
what has been the subsequent practice? 
Look to the newspapers; look to the 
published letters of officers of the gov- 
ernment, advising, exhorting, soliciting, 
friends and partisans to greater exer- 
tions in the cause of the party; see all 
done, everywhere, which patronage and 
power can do, to affect, not only elec- 
tions in the general government, but 
also in every State government, and 
then say how well this promise of re- 
forming abuses has been kept. At what 
former period, under what former ad- 
ministration, did public officers of the 
United States thus interfere in elections? 
Certainly, Sir, never. In this respect, 
then, as well as in others, that which 
was not true as a charge against previous 
administrations would have been true, 
if it had assumed the form of a proph- 
ecy respecting the acts of the present. 

But there is another attempt to grasp 
and to wield a power over public opin- 
ion, of a still more daring character, and 
far more dangerous effects. 

In all popular governments, a Free 
Press is the most important of all 
agents and instruments. It not only 
expresses public opinion, but, to a very 
great degree, it contributes to form 
that opinion. It is an engine for good 
or for evil, as it may be directed; but 
an engine of which nothi-ng can resist 
the force. The conductors of the press, 
in popular governments, occupy a place, 
in the social and political system, of the 
very highest consequence. They wear 
the character of public instructors. 
Their daily labors bear directly on the 
intelligence, the morals, the taste, and 
the public spirit of the country. Not 



EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 351 



only are they journalists, recording 
political occurrences, but they discuss 
principles, they comment on measures, 
they canvass characters; they hold a 
power over the i-eputation, the feelings, 
the happiness of individuals. The pub- 
lic ear is always open to their addresses, 
the public sympathy easily made respon- 
sive to their sentiments. It is indeed. 
Sir, a distinction of high honor, that 
theirs is the only profession expressly 
protected and guarded by constitutional 
enactments. Their employment soars 
so higli, in its general consequences it is 
so intimately connected with the public 
happiness, tliat its .security is provided 
for by the fundamental law. While it 
acts in a manner worthy of this distinc- 
tion, the press is a fountain of light, 
and a source of gladdening warmth. It 
instructs the public mind, and animates 
the spirit of patriotism. Its loud voice 
suppresses every thing which would raise 
itself against the public liberty; and its 
blasting rebuke causes incipient despot- 
ism to perish in the bud. 

But remember. Sir, that the.se are the 
attributes of a free press only. And 
is a press that is purchased or pensioned 
more free than a press that is fettered? 
Can the people look for truths to par- 
tial sources, whether rendered partial 
through fear or through favor? Why 
shall not a manacled press be trusted 
with the maintenance and defence of 
popular rights? Because it is supposed 
to be under the influence of a power 
which may prove greater than the love 
of truth. Such a press may .screen 
abuses in government, or be silent. It 
may fear to speak. And may it not 
fear to speak, too, when its conductors, 
if they speak in any but one way, may 
lo.se their means of livelihood? Is de- 
pendence on government for bread no 
temptation to screen its abu.ses? AVill 
the press always speak the truth, when 
the truth, if spoken, may be the means 
of silencing it for the future? Is tlie 
truth in no danger, is the watchman 
under no temptation, when he can nei- 
ther proclaim the approach of national 
evils, nor seem to descry them, without 
the loss of his place? 



Mr. President, an open attempt to 
secure the aid and friendship of the 
public press, by bestowing the emolu- 
ments of office on its active conductors, 
seems to me, of every thing we have 
witnessed, to be the most reprehensible. 
It degrades both the government and 
the press. As far as its natural effect 
extends, it turns the palladium of lil)erty 
into an engine of part}'. It brings the 
agency, activity, energy, and patronage 
of government all to bear, with united 
force, on the means of general intelli- 
gence, and on the adoption or rejection 
of political opinions. It so completely 
perverts the true obj(>ct of government, 
it so entirely revolutionizes our whole 
system, that the chief business of those 
in power is directed rather to the propa- 
gation of opinions favorable to them- 
selves, than to the execution of the laws. 
This propagation of opinions, through 
the press, becomes the main administra- 
tive duty. Some fifty or sixty editors 
of leading journals have been appointed 
to office by the present executive. A 
stand has been made against this pro- 
ceeding, in the Senate, with partial suc- 
cess; but, by means of apixiintments 
which do not come before the Senate, or 
other means, the number has been car- 
ried to the extent I have mentioned. 
Certainly, Sir, the editors of the public 
journals are not to be di.sfranchi.-^ed. 
Certainly they are fair candidates, either 
for popular elections, or a just participa- 
tion in office. Certainly they reckon in 
their number some of the first geniuses, 
the best scholars, and the most honest 
and well-principled men in the coinitry. 
But the complaint is against the sj/stem, 
against the practice, against the undis- 
guised attempt to secure the favor of 
the press by means addressed to its 
pecuniary interest, and these means, 
too, drawn from the public treasury, 
being no other than the appointed com- 
pensations for the performance of otficial 
duties. Sir, the press itself siiould re- 
sent this. Its own cliaractcr for jMuity 
and independence is at stake. It should 
resist a connection rendering it obnox- 
ious to .so many imputations. It should 
point to its honorable denomination iit 



352 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 



our constitutions of government, and it 
should maintain the character, there as- 
cribed to it, of a Fkee Pkess. 

There can, Sir, be no objection to the 
appointment of an editor to office, if he 
is the fittest man. There can be no ob- 
jection to considering the services which, 
in that or in any other capacity, he may 
have rendered his country. He may 
liave done much to maintain her rights 
against foreign aggression, and her char- 
acter against insult. He may liave hon- 
ored, as well as defended her; and may, 
therefore, be justly regarded and se- 
lected, in the choice of faithful public 
agents. But the gTound of complaint 
is, that the aiding, by the press, of the 
election of an individual, is rewarded, by 
that same individual, with the gift of 
moneyed offices. Men are turned out 
of office, and others put in, and receive 
salaries from the public treasury, on the 
ground, either openly avowed or falsely 
denied, that they have rendered service 
in the election of the very individual 
who makes this removal and makes this 
appointment. Every man. Sir, must see 
that this is a vital stab at the purity of 
the press. It not only assails its inde- 
pendence, by addressing sinister motives 
to it, but it furnishes from the public 



treasury the means of exciting these mo- 
tives. It extends the executive power 
over the press in a most daring n)anner. 
It operates to give a direction to opinion, 
not favorable to the government, in the 
aggregate; not favorable to the Consti- 
tution and laws; not favorable to the 
legislature; but favorable to the execu- 
tive alone. The consequence often is, 
just what might be looked for, that the 
portion of the press thus made fast to 
the executive interest denounces Con- 
gress, denounces the judiciary, com- 
plains of the laws, and quarrels with 
the Constitution. This exercise of the 
right of appointment to this end is an 
augmentation, and a vast one, of the 
executive power, singly and alone. It 
uses that power strongly against all 
other branches of the government, and 
it uses it strongly, too, for any struggle 
which it may be called on to make with 
the public opinion of the country. Mr. 
President, I will quit this topic. There 
is much in it, in my judgment, affect- 
ing, not only the purity and independ- 
ence of the press, but also the chai'acter 
and honor, the peace and security, of 
the government. I leave it, in all its 
bearings, to the consideration of the 
people. 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



FROM THE SAME SPEECH AT WORCESTER. 



Mr. President, the executive has not 
only used these unaccustomed means to 
prevent the passage of laws, but it has also 
refused to enforce the execution of laws 
actually passed. An eminent instance 
of this is found in the course adopted 
relative to the Indian intercourse law of 
1802. Upon being applied to, in behalf of 
the Missionaries, to execute tliat law, 
for theii" relief and protection, the Presi- 
dent replied, that the State of Georgia 
having extended her laws over the Indian 
territory, the laws of Congress had therehj 
been superseded. This is the substance 
of his answer, as communicated through 
the Secretary of War. He liolds, then, 
that the law of the State is paramount 
to the law of Congress. The Supreme 
Court has adjudged this act of Georgia 
to be void, as being repugnant to a con- 
stitutional law of the United States. 
But the President pays no more regard 
to this decision than to the act of Con- 
gress itself. The missionaries remain 
ill prison, held there by a condenniation 
under a law of a State which the su- 
pieme judicial tribunal has jironounced 
to be null and void. The Supreme Court 
have decided that the act of Congress is 
constitutional; that it is a binding stat- 
ute ; that it has the same force as other 
laws, and is as much entitled to be 
obeyed and executed as otlier laws. 
The President, on the contrary, declares 
that the law of Congress has been super- 
seded by the law of the State, and there- 
fore he will not carry its provisions into 
etfect. Now we know, Sir, that the 
Constitution of the United States de- 



23 



clares, that that Constitution, and all 
acts of Congress passed in pursuance 
of it, shall be the supreme law of the 
land, any thing in any State law to the 
contrary notwithstanding. Tins would 
seem to be a plain case, then, in which 
the law should be executed. It has 
been solemnly decided to be in actual 
force, by th« highest judicial authority; 
its execution is demanded for the relief 
of free citizens, now suffering the pains 
of unjust and unlawful imprisonment; 
yet the President refuses to execute it. 

In the case of the Chicago Road, 
some sessions ago, the President ajv 
proved the bill, but accompanied his 
approval by a message, saying how far 
he deemed it a proper law, and how 
far, therefore, it ought to be carried into 
execution. 

In the case of the harbor bill of the 
late session, being applied to liy ^ mem- 
ber of Congress for directions for carry- 
ing parts of the law into effect, he 
declined giving them, and made a dis- 
tinction between such parts of the law 
as lie should cause to be executed, and 
such as he should not; and his right to 
make this distinction has been oponly 
maintained, by those who liabiliially 
defend his measures. Indeed, Sir, these, 
and other instances of liberties takfii with 
plain statute laws, flow naturally from 
the principles expressly avowed by the 
President, under his own hand. In that 
important document, Sir, upon wliich it 
seems to be his fate to stand or to fall 
before the American people, the veto mes- 
.sage, he holds the following language: 



I 



354 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



" Each public officer who takes an oath 
to support the Constitution, swears that 
he will support it as he understands it, 
and not as it is understood by others." 
Mr. President, the general adoption of 
the sentiments expressed in this sentence 
would dissolve our government. It would 
raise every man's private opinions into 
a standard for his own conduct; and 
there certainly is, there can be, no gov- 
ernment, where every man is to judge 
for himself of his own rights and his 
own obligations. Where every one is 
his own arbiter, force, and not law, is 
the governing power. He who may 
judge for himself, and decide for him- 
self, must execute his own decisions; 
and this is the law of force. I confess, 
Sir, it strikes me with astonishment, that 
so wild, so disorganizing, a sentiment 
should be uttered by a President of the 
United States. I should think it must 
have escaped from its author through 
want of reflection, or from the habit of 
little reflection on such subjects, if I 
could suppose it possible, that, on a 
question exciting so much public atten- 
tion, and of so much national impor- 
tance, any such extraordinary doctrine 
could find its way, through inadvertence, 
into a formal and solemn public act. 
Standing as it does, it affirms a proposi- 
tion which would effectually repeal all 
constitutional and all legal obligations. 
The Constitution declai-es, that every 
public officer, in the State governments 
as well as in the general government, 
shall take an oath to support the Con- 
stitution of the United States. This is 
all. Would it not have cast an air of 
ridicule on the whole provision, if the 
Constitution had gone on to add the 
words, " as he understands it "? What 
could come nearer to a solemn farce, 
than to bind a man by oath, and still 
leave him to be his own interpreter of 
his own obligation? Sir, those who are 
to execute the laws have no more a 
license to construe them for themselves, 
than those whose only duty is to obey 
them. Public officers are bound to sup- 
port the Constitution; private citizens 
are bound to obey it; and there is no 
more indulgence granted to the public 



officer to support the Constitution only 
as he understands it, than to a private 
citizen to obey it only as he understands 
it; and what is time of the Constitu- 
tion, in this respect, is equally true of 
any law. Laws are to be executed, and 
to be obeyed, not as individuals may in- 
terpret them, but according to public, 
authoritative interpretation and adjudi- 
cation. The sentiment of the message 
would abrogate the obligation of the 
whole criminal code. If every man is 
to judge of the Constitution and the 
laws for himself, if he is to obey and 
support them only as he may say he 
understands them, a revolution, I think, 
would take place in the administration 
of justice; and discussions about the law 
of treason, murder, and arson should be 
addressed, not to the judicial bench, but 
to those who might stand charged with 
such offences. The object of discussion 
should be, if we run out this notion to 
its natural extent, to enlighten the cul- 
prit himself how he ought to understand 
the law. 

Mr. President, how is it possible that 
a sentiment so wild, and so dangerous, 
so encouraging to all who feel a desire 
to oppose the laws, and to impair the 
Constitution, should have been uttered 
by the President of the United States 
at this eventful and critical moment? 
Are we not threatened with dissolution 
of the Union? Are we not told that 
the laws of the government shall be 
openly and directly resisted? Is not the 
whole country looking, with the utmost 
anxiety, to what may be the result of 
these threatened courses? And at this 
very moment, so full of peril to the 
state, the chief magistrate puts forth 
opinions and sentiments as truly sub- 
versive of all government, as absolutely 
in conflict with the authority of the 
Constitution, as the wildest theories of 
nullification. Mr. President, I have 
very little regard for the law, or the 
logic, of nullification. But there is not 
an individual in its ranks, capable of 
putting two ideas together, who, if you 
will grant him the principles of the veto 
message, cannot defend all that nullifi- 
cation has ever threatened. 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



356 



To make this assertion good, Sir, let 
us see how the case stands. The Legis- 
lature of South Carolina, it is said, will 
nullify the late revenue or taritf law, 
because, they say, it is not warranted by 
the Constitution of the United States, as 
they understand the Constitution. They, 
as well as the President of the United 
States, have sworn to support the Con- 
stitution. Both he and tliey have taken 
the same oath, in the same words. 
Now, Sir, since he claims the right to 
interpret the Constitution as he pleases, 
how can he deny the same right to 
them? Is his oath less stringent than 
theirs? Has he a prerogative of dis- 
pensation which they do not possess? 
IIow can he answer them, when they 
tell him, that the revenue laws are 
unconstitutional, as they understand the 
Constitution, and that therefore they 
will nullify them? Will he reply to 
them, according to the doctrines of his 
annual message in 1830, that precedent 
has settled tiie question, if it was ever 
doubtful ? They will answer him in his 
own words in the veto message, that, in 
such a case, precedent is not binding. 
Will he say to them, that the revenue 
law is a law of Congress, which must 
be executed until it shall be declared 
void? They will answer him, that, in 
other cases, he has himself refused to 
execute laws of Congress which had not 
been declared void, but which had been, 
on the contrary, declai'ed valid. Will 
he urge the force of judicial decisions? 
They will answer, that he himself does 
not admit the binding obligation of 
such decisions. Sir, the President of 
the United States is of opinion, that an 
individual, called on to execute a law, 
may himself judge of its constitutional 
validity. Does nullification teach any 
thing more revolutionary than that? 
The President is of opinion, that judi- 
cial interpretations of the Constitution 
and the laws do not bind the con- 
sciences, and ought not to bind the 
conduct, of men. Is nullification at all 
more disorganizing than that? The 
President is of opinion, that every of- 
ficer is bound to support the Constitu- 
tion only according to what ought to be, 



in his private opinion, its construction. 
Has nullification, in its wildc-st flight, 
ever reached to an extravagance like 
that? No, Sir, never. The doctrine of 
nullification, in iny judgment a most 
false, dangerous, and revolutionary doc- 
trine, is this: that the State, or « State, 
may declare the extent of the obliga- 
tions which its citizens are under to the 
United States; in other words, tliat a 
State, by State laws and State judica- 
tures, may conclusively construe the 
Constitution for its own citizens. liut 
that every individual may construe it 
for him.self is a refinement on tlie theory 
of resistance to constitutional power, a 
sublimation of the right of being dis- 
loyal to the Union, a free charter for the 
elevation of private opinion above the 
autlir)rity of the fundamental law of 
the state, such as was never presented 
to the public view, and the public aston- 
ishment, even by nullification itself. Its 
first appearance is in the veto message. 
Melancholy, lamentable, indeed, Sir, is 
our condition, when, at a moment of 
serious danger and wide-spread alarm, 
such sentiments are found to proceed 
from the chief magistrate of the govern- 
ment. Sii", I cannot feel that the Con- 
stitution is safe in such hands. I can- 
not feel that the present administration 
is its fit and proper guardian. 

But let me ask. Sir. wliat evidence 
there is, that the President is himself 
opposed to the doctrines of nullification: 
I do not say to the political party which 
now pushes these doctrines, but to the 
doctrines themselves, lias lie anywliere 
rebuked them? Has he anywliere dis- 
couraged them? Has ids influence been 
exerted to inspire respect for tiie Con- 
stitution, and to produce obedience to 
the laws? Has he followed tlic bright 
example of his predeces.sors? Has lie 
held fast by the institutions of the coun- 
tiy? Has lie suninidncd tlie 1,'ood and 
the wi.se around him? Has he admon- 
ished the country that the Union is in 
danger, and called on all the patriotic 
to come out in its .supjort? AlasI Sir, 
we have seen nothing, notliing, of all 
this. 

Mr. President, I shall not discuss the 



356 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



doctrine of nullification. T am sure it 
can have no friends here. Gloss it and 
disguise it as we may, it is a pretence 
incompatible with the authority of the 
Constitution. If direct separation be 
not its only mode of operation, separa- 
tion is, nevertheless, its direct conse- 
quence. That a State may nullify a 
law of the Union, and still remain in 
the Union; that she may have Senators 
and Representatives in the government, 
and yet be at liberty to disobey and 
resist that government; that she may 
partake in the common councils, and yet 
not be bound by their results; that she 
may control a law of Congress, so that it 
shall be one thing with her, while it is 
another thing with the rest of the States ; 
— all these propositions seem to me so 
absolutely at war with common sense 
and reason, that I do not understand 
how any intelligent person can yield the 
slightest assent to them. Nullification, 
it is in vain to attempt to conceal it, is 
dissolution; it is dismemberment; it is 
the breaking up of the Union. If it 
shall practically succeed in any one 
State, from that moment there are 
twenty-fovir States in the Union no 
longer. Now, Sir, I think it exceed- 
ingly probable that the President may 
come to an open rupture with that por- 
tion of his original party which now 
constitutes what is called the Nullifica- 
tion party. I think it likely he will 
oppose the proceedings of that party, if 
they shall adopt measures coming di- 
rectly in conflict with the laws of the 
United States. But how will he op- 
pose ? What will be his course of 
remedy? Sir, I wish to call the atten- 
tion of the Convention, and of the peo- 
ple, earnestly to this question, — How 
will the President attempt to put down 
nullification, if he shall attempt it at 
all? 

Sir, for one, I protest in advance 
against such remedies as I have heard 
hinted. The administration itself keeps 
a profound silence, but its friends have 
spoken for it. We are told. Sir, that 
the President will immediately employ 
the military force, and at once block- 
ade Charleston ! A military remedy, a 



remedy by direct belligerent operation, 
has been thus suggested, and nothing 
else has been suggested, as the intended 
means of preserving the Union. Sir, 
there is no little reason to think, that 
this suofsestion is true. We cannot be 
altogether unmindful of the past, and 
therefore we cannot be altogether unap- 
prehensive for the future. For one. Sir, 
I raise my voice beforehand against the 
unauthorized employment of military 
power, and against superseding the au- 
thoi'ity of the laws, by an armed force, 
under pretence of putting down nullifi- 
cation. The President has no authority 
to blockade Charleston; the President 
has no authority to employ military 
force, till he shall be duly required so to 
do, by law, and by the civil authorities. 
His duty is to cause the laws to be exe- 
cuted. His duty is to support the civil 
authoi'ity. Ilis duty is, if the laws be 
resisted, to employ the military force of 
the country, if necessary, for their sup- 
port and execution ; but to do all this in 
compliance only with law, and with de- 
cisions of the tribunals. If, by any in- 
genious devices, those who resist the 
laws escape from the reach of judicial 
authority, as it is now provided to be 
exercised, it is entirely competent to 
Congress to make such new provisions 
as the exigency of the case may de- 
mand. These provisions undoubtedly 
would be made. With a constitutional 
and efficient head of the government, 
with an administration really and truly 
in favor of the Constitution, the coun- 
try can grapple with nullification. By 
the force of reason, by the progress of 
enlightened opinion, by the natural, 
genuine patriotism of the country, and 
by the steady and well-sustained opera- 
tions of law, the progress of disorgan- 
ization may be successfully checked, and 
the Union maintained. Lf^t it be re- 
membered, that, where nullification is 
most powerful, it is not unopposed. 
Let it be remembered, that they who 
would break up the Union by force have 
to march toward that object through 
thick ranks of as brave and good 
men as the country can show, — men 
strong in character, strong in intelli- 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



357 



gence, strong in the purity of their own 
motives, and ready, always ready, to 
sacrific«e their fortunes and tlioir lives 
to the pi'escrvation of the eonstitutiunal 
union of the States. If we can relieve 
the country from an administration 
which denies to the Constitution those 
powers which are the breath of its life; 
if we can place the government in the 
hands of its friends; if we can secure it 
against tlie dangers of irregular and 
unlawful military force; if it can be 
under the lead of an administration 
whose moderation, firmness, and wis- 
dom shall inspire confidence and com- 
mand respect, — we may yet surmount 
the dangers, numerous and formidable 
as they are, which suiTound us. 

Sir, I see little prospect of overcom- 
ing these dangers without a change of 
men. After all that has passed, the 
re-election of the present executive will 
give the national sanction to sentiments 
and to measures which will effectually 
change the government; which, in short, 
must destroy the government. If the 
President be re-elected, with concur- 
rent and co-operating majorities in both 
houses of Congress, I do not see, that, 
in four years more, all the power which 
is suffered to remain in the government 
will not be held by the executive hand. 
Nullitication will proceed, or will be put 
down by a power as unconstitutional as 
itself. The revenues will be managed 
by a treasury bank. The use of the 
veto will be considered as sanctioned by 
the public voice. The Senate, if not 
"cut down," will be bound down, and, 
the President commanding the army 
and the navy, and holding all places 
of trust to be party property, what 
will then be left. Sir, for constitutional 
reliance? 

Sir, we have been accustomed to ven- 
erate the judiciary, and to repose hopes 
of .safety on that branch of the govern- 
ment. But let us not deceive ourselves. 
The judicial power cannot stand for a 
long time against the executive power. 
The judges, it is true, hold their places 
by an independent tenure ; but they are 
mortal. That which is the common lot 
of humanity must make it necessary to 



renew the benches of justice. And how 
will they be fiUedV Doubtless, Sir, tliey 
will be filled by judges agreeing with 
the Pre.sideut in his constitutional opin- 
ions. I L' the court is felt as an obstacle, 
the first opportunity and every opportu- 
nity will certainly be embraced to give 
it less and less the chaiacter of an 
ob.stacle. Sir, without pursuing these 
suggestion.s, I only say that the country 
must prepare itself for any change in 
the judicial department such as it shall 
deliberately sanction in other dep.irt- 
ments. 

But, Sir, what is the prospect of 
change? Is there any hope 'that the 
national sentiment will recover its ac- 
customed tone, and restore to the gov- 
ernment a just and efficient adminis- 
tration ? 

Sir, if there be something of doubt on 
this point, there is also something, per- 
haps much, of hope. The popularity of 
the present chief magistrate, springing 
from causes not connected with his ad- 
ministration of the government, has 
been great. Public gratitude for mili- 
tary service has renuiined fast to him, 
in defiance of many things in his civil 
administration calculated to weaken its 
hold. At length tliere are indications, 
not to be mistaken, of new sentiment* 
and new impressions. At length, a 
conviction of danger to important in- 
terests, and to the secuiity of the gov- 
ernment, has made its lodgement in the 
public mind. At length, public senti- 
ment begins to have its free course and 
to produce its just effects. I fully be- 
lieve. Sir, that a great majority of the 
nation desire a change in tiie adminis- 
tration; and that it will be difficult for 
party organization or party denimciation 
to suppress the effective utterance of 
that general wish. Tiiere are uidiappy 
differences, it is true, about tlie fit per- 
son to be successor to the present incum- 
bent in the chief magistracy ; and it is 
po.ssible that this disunion may, in tlie 
end, defeat tiie will of the majority. 
But so far as we agree togetln-r, let u.s 
act together. Wherever our sentinienUs 
concur, let our hands cn-o|><'rat»'. If 
we cannot at present agree who should 



358 



EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 



be President, we are at least agreed who 
ought not to be. I fully believe, Sir, 
that gratifying intelligence is already on 
the wing. While we are yet deliberat- 
ing in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania is 
voting. This week, she elects her mem- 
bers to the next Congress. I doubt not 
the result of that election will show an 
important change in public sentiment 
in that State; nor can I doubt that the 
great States adjoining her, holding 
similar constitutional principles and 
having similar interests, will feel the 
impulse of the same causes which affect 
her. The people of the United States, 
by a countless majority, are attached to 
the Constitution. If they shall be con- 
vinced that it is in danger, they will 
come to its rescue, and will save it. It 
cannot be destroyed, even now, if they 
will undertake its guardianship and 
protection. 

But suppose, Sir, there was less hope 
than there is, would that consideration 
weaken the force of our obligations? 
Are we at a post which we are at liberty 
to desert when it becomes difficult to 
hold it? May we fly at the approach of 
danger? Does our fidelity to the Con- 
stitution require no more of us than to 
enjoy its blessings, to bask in the pros- 
pei'ity which it has shed arovind us and 
our fathers? and are we at liberty to 
abandon it in the hour of its peril, or to 
make for it but a faint and heartless 
struggle, for the want of encourage- 
ment and the want of hope ? Sir, if no 
State come to our succor, if everywhere 
else the contest should be given up, here 
let it be protracted to the last moment. 
Here, where the first blood of the Revo- 
lution was shed, let the last effort be 
made for that which is the greatest 
blessing obtained by the Revolution, a 
free and united government. Sir, in 
our endeavors to maintain our existing 



forms of government, we are acting not 
for ourselves alone, but for the great 
cause of constitutional liberty all over 
the globe. We are trustees holding a 
sacred treasure, in which all the lovers 
of freedom have a stake. Not only in 
revolutionized France, where there are 
no longer subjects, where the monarch 
can no longer say, I am the state; not 
only in reformed England, where our 
principles, our institutions, our practice 
of free government, are now daily quoted 
and commended; but in the depths of 
Germany, also, and among the desolated 
fields and the still smoking ashes of 
Poland, prayers are uttered for the 
preservation of our union and happiness. 
We are surrounded. Sir, by a cloud of 
witnesses. The gaze of the sons of lib- 
erty, eveiywhere, is upon us, anxiously, 
intently, upon us. They may see us 
fall in the struggle for our Constitution 
and government, but Heaven forbid that 
they should see us recreant. 

At least. Sir, let the star of Massa- 
chusetts be the last which shall be seen 
to fall from heaven, and to plunge into 
the utter darkness of disunion. Let 
her shrink back, let her hold others back 
if she can, at any rate, let her keep her- 
self back, from this gulf, full at once of 
fire and of blackness; yes. Sir, as far as 
human foresight can scan, or human 
imagination fathom, full of the fire and 
the blood of civil war, and of the thick 
darkness of general political disgrace, 
ignominy, and ruin. Though the worst 
may happen that can happen, and 
though she may not be able to prevent 
the catastrophe, yet let her maintain 
her own integrity, her own high honor, 
her own unwavering fidelity, so that 
with respect and decency, though with 
a broken and a bleeding heart, she may 
pay the last tribute to a glorious, de- 
parted, free Constitution. 



THE NATURAL HATRED OF THE POOR TO 

THE RICH. 

FROM A SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 3l8T, 
1834, ON "THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS." 



Sir, there is one other subject on 
which I wish to raise my voice. There 
is a topic which I perceive is to be- 
come the general war-cry of party, on 
which I take the liberty to warn the 
country against delusion. Sir, the cry 
is to be raised that this is a question 
between the poor and the rich. 1 know. 
Sir, it has been proclaimed, that one 
thing was certain, that there was always 
a hatred on the part of the poor toward 
the rich; and that this hatred would 
support the late measures, and the put- 
ting down of the bank. Sir, I will not 
be silent at the threat of such a detesta- 
ble fraud on public opinion. If but ten 
men, or one man, in the nation will hear 
ray voice, I will still warn thum against 
this attempted imposition. 

^Ir. President, this is an eventful mo- 
ment. On the great questions which 
occupy us, we all look for some decisive 
movement of public opinion. As I wish 
that movement to be free, intelligent, 
and unbiassed, the true manifestation of 
the public will, I desire to prepare the 
country for another appeal, which I 
perceive is about to be made to pojtular 
prejudice, another attempt to obscure 
all distinct views of the public good, to 
overwhelm all patriotism and all enlight- 
ened self-interest, by loud cries against 
false danger, and by exciting the pa.s- 
sions of one class against another. I 
am not mistaken in the omen ; I see the 
magazine whence the weapons of this 
warfare are to be drawn. I hear already 
the din of the hammering of arms pre- 



paratory to the combat. They may be 
such arms, perhaps, as reason, and jus- 
tice, and honest patriotism cannot resist. 
Every effort at resistance, it is jxjssible, 
may be feeble and jxjwerless; but, for 
one, I shall make an effort, — an effort 
to be begun now, and to be carried on 
and continued, with untiring zeal, till 
the end of the contest. 

Sir, I see, in tho.se vehicles wliicii 
carry to the people sentiments from high 
places, plain declarations that the pres- 
ent controversy is but a strife between 
one part of the conmiunity and another. 
I hear it boasted as the unfailing secu- 
rity, the solid ground, never to be shaken, 
on wliich recent measures rest, that the 
poor nuturallif hale the' rich. I know 
that, under the cover of the roofs of the 
Capitol, within the last twenty-four 
hours, among men sent here to devise 
means for the public safety and the 
public good, it has been vaunt«d forth, 
as matter of boast and triumph, that 
one cau.se existed powerful enougli to 
support every thing and to defend every 
thing; and that was, the natural hatred 
of the poor to the rich. 

Sir, I pronounce the author of su<,'h 
sentiments to be guilty of attempting a 
detestable fraud on the ci-mnuinity ; u 
double fraud; a fraud whicli is to clieat 
men out of their property, and out of the 
earnings of their labor, by first cheating 
them out of their understandings. 

"The natural hatred of the poor to 
tlie rich!" Sir, it shall not be till tlio 
last moment of my existence, — it shall 



S60 



THE NATURAL HATRED OF THE POOR TO THE RICH. 



be only when T am drawn to the verge 
of oblivion, when I shall cease to have 
respect or affection for any thing on 
earth, — that I will believe the people 
of the United States capable of being 
effectually deluded, cajoled, and driven 
about in herds, by such abominable 
frauds as tliis. If they shall sink to 
that point, if they so far cease to be 
men, thinking men, intelligent men, as 
to yield to such pretences and such 
clamor, they will be slaves already ; 
slaves to their own passions, slaves to 
the fraud and knavery of pretended 
friends. They will deserve to be blotted 
out of all the records of freedom ; they 
ought not to dishonor the cause of self- 
government, by attempting any longer 
to exercise it; they ought to keep their 
unworthy hands entirely off from the 
cause of republican liberty, if they are 
capable of being the victims of artifices 
so shallow, of tricks so stale, so thread- 
bare, so often practised, so much worn 
out, on serfs and slaves. 

"The natural hatred of the poor 
against the . rich ! " "The danger of a 
moneyed aristocracy!" "A power as 
great and dangerous as that resisted by 
the Revolution ! " "A call to a new 
declaration of independence! " Sir, I 
admonish the people against the object 
of outcries like these. I admonish every 
industrious laboVer in the country to be 
on his guard against such delusion. I 
tell him the attempt is to play off his 
passions against his interests, and to 
prevail on him, in the name of liberty, 
to destroy all the fruits of liberty; in 
the name of patriotism, to injure and 
afflict his country; and in the name of 
his own independence, to destroy that 
very independence, and make him a 
beggar and a slave. Has he a dollar? 
He is advised to do that which will de- 
stroy half its value. Has he hands to 
labor? Let him rather fold them, and 
sit still, than be pushed on, by fraud 
and artifice, to support measures which 
will render his labor useless and hope- 
less. 

Sir, the very man, of all others, who 
has the deepest interest in a sound cur- 
rency, and who suffers most by mis- 



chievous legislation in money matters, 
is the man who earns his daily bread 
by his daily toil. A depreciated cur- 
rency, sudden changes of prices, paper 
money, falling between morning and 
noon, and falling still lower between 
noon and night, — these things consti- 
tute the very harvest-time of specula- 
tors, and of the whole race of those 
who are at once idle and crafty; and of 
that other race, too, the Catilines of all 
times, marked, so as to be known for 
ever by one stroke of the historian's 
pen, thotie greedy of other men^s property 
and prodigal of their own. Capitalists, 
too, may outlive such times. They may 
either prey on the earnings of labor, by 
their cent, per cent. , or they may hoard. 
But the laboring man, what can he 
hoard? Preying on nobody, he becomes 
the prey of all. His property is in his 
hands. His reliance, his fund, his pro- 
ductive freehold, his all, is his labor. 
Whether he work on his own small cap- 
ital, or another's, his living is still earned 
by his industry; and when the money 
of the country becomes depreciated and 
debased, whether it be adulterated coin 
or paper without credit, that industry is 
robbed of its reward. He then labors 
for a country whose laws cheat him out 
of his bread. I would say to every 
owner of every quarter-section of land 
in the West, I would say to every man 
in the East who follows his own plough, 
and to every mechanic, artisan, and la- 
borer in every city in the country, — I 
would say to every man, everywhere, 
who wishes by honest means to gain an 
honest living, "Beware of wolves in 
sheep's clothing. Whoever attempts, 
under whatever popular cry, to shake the 
stability of the public currency, bring 
on distress in money matters, and drive 
the country into the use of paper money, 
stabs your interest and your happiness 
to the heart." 

The herd of hungry wolves who live 
on other men's earnings will rejoice in 
such a state of things. A system which 
absorbs into their pockets the fruits of 
other men's industry is the very system 
for them. A government that produces 
or countenances uncertainty, fluctua- 



THE NATURAL HATRED OF THE POOR TO THE RICH. 



301 



tions, violent risings and fallings in 
prices, and, finally, paper money, is 
a government exactly after their own 
heart. Hence these men are always for 
change. They will never let well enough 
alone. A condition of public affairs in 
which property is safe, industry certain 
of its reward, and every man secure in 
his own hard-earned gains, is no para- 
dise for them. Give them just the re- 
verse of tins state of things; bring on 
change, and change after change; let it 
not be known to-day what will be tlie 
value of property to-morrow; let no man 
be able to say whether the money in his 
pockets at night will be money or worth- 
less rags in the morning; and depress 
labor till double work shall earn but 
half a living, — give them this state of 
tilings, and you give them the consum- 
mation of their earthly bliss. 

Sir, the great interest of this great 
country, the producing cause of all its 
prosperity, is labor! labor! labor! We 
are a laboring community. A vast ma- 
jority of us all live by industry and ac- 
tual employment in some of their forms. 
The Constitution was made to protect 
this industry, to give it both encourage- 
ment and security; but, above all, se- 
cui'ity. To that very end, with that 
precise object in view, power was given 
to Congress over the currency, and over 
the money system of the country. In 



forty years' experience, we have fonnd 
nothing at all adequate to tlie beneficial 
execution of this trust but a well-con- 
ducted natioiud bank. That ha.s been 
tried, returned to, tried again, and al- 
ways found successful. If it be not the 
proper thing for us, let it be soberly 
argued against; let something better 
be proposed; let the country examine 
the matter coolly, and decide for itself. 
But whoever shall attempt to carry a 
question of this kind by clamor, and 
violence, and prejiulice; whoever would 
rouse the people by appeals, false and 
fraudulent appeals, to their love of inde- 
pendence, to resist the establishment of 
a useful institution, because it is a bank, 
and deals in money, and who artfully 
urges these appeals wherever he thinks 
there is more of honest feeling than of 
enlightened judgment, — means notliing 
but deception. And whoever has the 
wickedness to conceive, and the hardi- 
hood to avow, a purpose to break down 
what has been found, in forty years' 
experience, essential to the protection 
of all interests, by arraying one class 
against another, and by acting on such 
a principle as that the poor always hate 
the rich, shows himself tlie reckless ene- 
my of all. An enemy to his whole 
country, to all classes, and to every man 
in it, he deserves to be marked espe- 
cially as the poor man^s curse ! 



A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 



FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 

THE22D OF FEBRUARY, 1834. 



Mr. President, — The honorable 
member from Georgia stated yesterday, 
more distinctly than I have before learned 
it, what that experiment is whicii the 
government is now trying on the revenues 
and the currency,' and, I may add, on 
the commerce, manufactures, and agri- 
culture of this country. If I rightly 
apprehend him, this experiment is an 
attempt to return to an exclusive specie 
curi-ency, first, by employing the State 
banks as a substitute for the Bank of 
the United States; and then by dispens- 
ing with the use of the State banks 
themselves. 

This, Sir, is the experiment. I thank 
the gentleman for thus stating its char- 
acter. He has done his duty, and dealt 
fairly with the people, by this exhibi- 
tion of what the views of the executive 
government are, at this interesting mo- 
ment. It is certainly most proper that 
the people should see distinctly to what 
end or for what object it is that so much 
suffering is already upon them, and so 
much more already in visible and near 
prospect. 

And now. Sir, is it possible, — is it 
possible that twelve millions of intelli- 
gent people can be expected voluntarily 
to subject themselves to severe distress, 
of unknown duration, for the purpose 
of making trial of an experiment like 
this? Will a nation that is intelligent, 
well informed of its own interest, en- 
lightened, and capable of self-govern- 
ment, submit to suffer embarrassment 
in all its pursuits, loss of capital, loss 



of employment, and a sudden and dead 
stop in its onward movement in the path 
of prosperity and wealth, until it shall 
be ascertained whether this new-hatched 
theory shall answer the hopes of those 
who have devised it? Is the country to 
be persuaded to bear every thing, and 
bear patiently, until the operation of 
such an experiment, adopted for such 
an avowed object, and adopted, too, 
without the co-operation or consent of 
Congress, and by the executive power 
alone, shall exhibit its results? 

In the name of the hundreds of thou- 
sands of our suffering fellow-citizens, I 
ask, for what reasonable end is this ex- 
periment to be tried? What great and 
good object, worth so much cost, is it to 
accomplish? What enormous evil is to 
be remedied by all this inconvenience 
and all this suffering? What great ca- 
lamity is to be averted? Have the peo- 
ple thronged our doors, and loaded our 
tables with petitions for relief against 
the pressure of some political mischief, 
some notorious misrule, which this ex- 
periment is to redress? Has it been re- 
sorted to in an hour of misfortune, ca- 
lamity, or peril, to save the state ? Is it 
a measure of remedy, yielded to the im- 
portunate cries of an agitated and dis- J 
tressed nation ? Far, Sir, very far from ^ 
all this. There was no calamity, there 
was no suffering, there was no peril, 
when these measures began. At the 
moment when this expei'iment was en- 
tered upon, these twelve millions of peo- 
ple were prosperous and happy, not only 



A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 



303 



beyond the example of all others, but 
even beyond their own example in 

times past. 

There was no pressure of public or 
private distress throughout the whole 
land. All business was prosperous, all 
industry was rewarded, and cheerful- 
ness and content universally prevailed. 
Yet, in the midst of all this enjoyment, 
with so much to heighten and so little 
to mar it, this experiment comes upon 
us, to harass and oppress us at present, 
and to affright us for the future. Sir, 
it is incredible; the world abroad will 
not believe it ; it is difficult even for us 
to credit, who see it with our own eyes, 
that the country, at such a moment, 
should put itself upon an experiment 
fraught with such immediate and over- 
whelming evils, and threatening the 
property and the employments of the 
people, and all their social and political 
blessings, with severe and long-endur- 
ing future inflictions. 

And this experiment, with all its cost, 
is to be tried, for .what? Why, simply, 
Sir, to enable us to try another "ex- 
periment"; and that other experiment 
is, to see whether an exclusive specie 
currency may not be better than a cur- 
rency partly specie and partly bank 
paper! The object which it is hoped 
we may effect, by patiently treading 
this path of endurance, is to banish all 
bank paper, of all kinds, and to have 
coined money, and coined money only, 
as the actual currency of the country ! 

Now, Sir, I altogether deny that such 
an object is at all desirable, even if it 
could be attained. I know, indeed, that 
all paper ought to circulate on a specie 
])asis; that all bank-notes, to be safe, 
must be convertible into gold and silver 
at the will of the holder; and I admit, 
tt)o, that the issuing of very small notes 
by many of the State banks has too 
much reduced the amount of specie 
actually circulating. It may be remem- 
bered that I called the attention of Con- 
gress to this subject in 1832, and that 
the bill which then passed both houses 
for renewing the bank charter contained 
a provision designed to produce some 
restraint on the circulation of very small 



notes. I admit there are conveniences 
in making small payments in PjMjcie; 
and I have always, not only admitted, 
but contended, that, if all is.siies of bank- 
notes under five dollars were discontin- 
ued, much more specie would l>e retained 
in the country, and in the circuhition; 
and that great security would result from 
this. But we are now debating about an 
exclusive specie currency; and 1 deny 
tluit an exclusive specie currency is the 
best currency for any highly commercial 
country; and I deny, espcciiilly, tliat 
such a currency would be best suited to 
the condition and circumstances of the 
United States. With the enlightened 
writers and practical statesmen of all 
commercial comnmnities in modern 
times, I have supposed it to be admit- 
ted that a well regulated, properly re- 
strained, safely limited paper currency, 
circulating on an adequate .specie basis, 
was a thing to be desired, a political 
public advantage to be obtained, if it 
might be obtained ; and, more espe- 
cially, I have supposed that in a new 
country, with resources not yet half 
developed, with a rapidly increasing 
population and a con.stant demand for 
more and more capital, — that is to say, 
in just such a country as the United 
States are, I have supposed that it was 
admitted that there are j)articular and 
extraordinary advantages in a safe and 
well regulated paper currency; because 
in such a country well regulated bank 
paper not only supplies a convenienC 
medium of payments and of exchange, 
but also, by the expansion of that me- 
dium in a reasonable and safe degree, 
the amount of circulation is kept more 
nearly commensurate witli the constant- 
ly increasing amount of property; and 
an extended capital, in the sIiajH' of 
credit, comes to the aid of the enter- 
prising and the industrious. It is jire- 
cisely on this credit, created by reiuson- 
able expansion of tlie currency in a new 
countiy, that men of small capital carry 
on their business. It is exactly by 
means of this, that industry and enter- 
prise are stimulated, if wo were driven 
back to an exeiusiv.'ly nn'tallic curren- 
cy, the necessary and inevitable conse- 



364 



A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 



quence would be, that all trade would 
fall into the hands of large capitalists. 
This is so plain, that no man of reflec- 
tion can doubt it. I know not, there- 
fore, in what words to express my as- 
tonishment, when I hear it said that the 
present measures of government are in- 
tended for the good of the many instead 
of the few, for the benefit of the poor, 
and against the rich ; and when I hear 
it proposed, at the same moment, to do 
away with the whole system of credit, 
and place all trade and commerce, there- 
fore, in the hands of those who have ade- 
quate capital to carry them on without 
the use of any credit at all. This, Sir, 
would be dividing .society, by a precise, 
distinct, and well-defined line, into two 
classes; first, the small class, who have 
competent capital for trade, when credit 
is out of the question; and, secondly, 
the vastly numerous class of those whose 
living must become, in such a state of 
things, a mere manual occupation, with- 
out the use of capital or of any substi- 
tute for it. 

Now, Sir, 'it is the effect of a well- 
regulated system of paper credit to break 
in upon this line thus dividing the many 
from the few, and to enable more or less 
of the more numei'ous class to pass over 
it, and to participate in the profits of 
capital by means of a safe and conven- 
ient substitute for capital ; and thus to 
diffuse far more widely the general earn- 
ings, and therefore the general prosper- 
ity and happiness, of society. Every 
nian of observation must have witnessed, 
in this country, that men of heavy capi- 
tal have constantly complained of bank 
circulation, and a consequent credit sys- 
tem, as injurious to the rights of capital. 
They undoubtedly feel its effects. All 
that is gained by the use of credit is 
just so much subtracted from the amount 
of their own accumulations, and so much 
the more has gone to the benefit of those 
who bestow their own labor and indus- 
try on capital in small amounts. To the 
great majority, this has been of incal- 
culable benefit in the United States; and 
therefore. Sir, whoever attempts the en- 
tire overthrow of the system of bank 
credit aims a deadly blow at the interest 



of that great and industrious class, who, 
having some capital, cannot, neverthe- 
less, transact business without some 
credit. He can mean nothing else, if 
he have any intelligible meaning at all, 
than to turn all such persons over to the 
long list of mere manual laborers. What 
else can they do, with not enough of 
absolute capital, and with no credit? 
This, Sir, this is the true tendency and 
the unavoidable result of these measures, 
which have been undertaken witli the 
patriotic object of assisting the poor 
against the rich ! 

I am well aware that bank credit may 
be abused. I know that there is another 
extreme, exactly the opposite of that of 
which I have now been speaking, and no 
less sedulously to be avoided. I know 
that the issue of bank jiaper may be- 
come excessive; that depreciation will 
then follow ; and that the evils, the 
losses, and the frauds consequent on a 
disordered currency fall on the rich and 
the poor together, but with especial 
weight of ruin on the poor. I know 
that the system of bank credit must al- 
ways rest on a specie basis, and that it 
constantly needs to be strictly guarded 
and properly restrained; and it may be 
so guarded and restrained. We need 
not give up the good which belongs to 
it, through fear of the evils which may 
follow from its abuse. We have the 
power to take security against these evils. 
It is our business, as statesmen, to adopt 
that security ; it is our business not to 
prostrate, or attempt to prostrate, the 
system, but to use those means of pre- 
caution, restraint, and correction which 
experience has sanctioned, and which 
are ready at our hands. 

It would be to our everlasting re- 
proach, it would be placing us below the 
general level of the intelligence of civil- 
ized states, to admit that we cannot 
contrive means to enjoy the benefits of 
bank circulation, and of avoiding, at 
the same time, its dangers. Indeed, Sir, 
no contrivance is necessary. It is con- 
trivance, and the love of contrivance, 
that spoil all. We are destroying our- 
selves by a remedy which no evil called 
for. W^e are ruining perfect health by 



A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 



365 



nostrums and quackery. We have lived 
hitherto under a well constructed, prac- 
tical, and beneficial system; a system 
not surpassed by any in the world ; and 
it seems to me to be presuming largely, 
largely indeed, on the credulity and self- 
denial of the people, to rush with such 
sudden and impetuous haste into new 
schemes and new theories, to overturn 
and annihilate all that we have so long 
found useful. 

Our system has hitherto been one in 
which paper has been circulating on the 
strength of a specie basis; that is to say, 
when every bank-note was convertible 
into specie at the will of the holder. 
This has been our guard against excess. 
While banks are bound to redeem their 
bills by paying gold and silver on de- 
mand, and are at all times able to do 
this, the currency is safe and<<conven- 
ient. Such a curren^ is not paper 
money, in its odious sense. It is not 
like the Continental j^aper of Revolu- 
tionary times ; it is not like thg„Jr¥flffli- 
less bills of banks which have suspended 
specie payments. On the contrary, it 
is the representative of gold and silver, 
and convertible into gold and silver 
on demand, and therefore answeis tlie 
purposes of gold and silver; and so long 
as its credit is in this way sustained, it 
is the cheapest, the best, and the most 
convenient circulating medium. I have 
already endeavored to warn the country 
against irredeemable paper; against the 
paper of banks which do not pay specie 
for their own notes; against that miser- 
able, abominable, and fraudulent policy, 
which attempts to give value to any 
paper, of any bank, one single moment 
longer than such paper is redeemable on 
demand in gold and silver. I wish most 
solemnly and earnestly to repeat that 
warning. I .see danger of that state of 
things ahead. I see imminent danger 
that a portion of the State banks will 
stop specie payments. The late measure 
of the Secretary, and the infatuation with 
which it seems to be supported, tend di- 
rectly and strongly to that result. Un- 
der pretence, then, of a design to return 
to a currency which shall be all specie, 
we are likely to have a currency in which 



there shall be no specie at all. We are 
in danger of being overwhelmed with 
irredeemable paper, mere paper, repre- 
senting nut gold nor silver; no. Sir, rep 
resenting nothing but broken promi.se.s, 
bad faith, bankrupt corporations, ch<.'at- 
ed creditors, and a ruined people. Tliis, 
I fear. Sir, may be the consequence, al- 
ready alarmingly near, of this attempt, 
unwise if it be real, and gro.ssly fraudu- 
lent if it be only pretended, of estaltlish- 
ing an exclusively hard-money currency. 

But, Sir, if this shock could be avoid- 
ed, and if we could leach the object of 
an exclusive metallic circulation, we 
shoidd find in that very success serious 
and insurmountable inconveniences. We 
require neither irredeemable ])aper, nor 
yet exclusively hard money. We require 
a mixed system. We require specie, and 
we require, too, good bank paper, found- 
ed on specie, representing specie, and 
convertible into specie on demand. We 
Inquire, in short, just such a currency as 
we have long enjoyed, and the advan- 
tages of which we seem now, with un- 
accountable rashness, about to throw 
away. 

I avow myself, therefore, decidedly 
against the object of a return to an ex- 
clusive specie currency. I find great 
difficulty, I confess, in believing any man 
serious in avowing such an ol)ject. It 
seems to me rather a subject for ridi- 
cule, at this age of the world, than for 
sober argument. But if it be true that 
any are serious for the return of the gold 
and silver age, I am seriously against it. 

Let us. Sir, anticipate, in imagiiui- 
tion, the accomplishment of tliis grand 
experiment. Let us su]>pose that, at 
this moment, all bank ]>aper were out of 
existence, and the country full of siiecie. 
Where, Sir, should we put it, and what 
should we do with it ? Should we ship 
it, by cargoes, every day, from New 
York to New Orleans, and from New 
Orleans back to New York ? SlxMild wo 
encumber the turnpikes, the raiJroftiJ.s, 
and the steamboats with it, whenever 
purchases and sales were to be made in 
one place of articles to be transjwrted to 
another ? The carriage of the money 
would, in some cases, cost half as umch 



366 



A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 



as the carriage of the goods. Sir, the 
very first day, under such a state of 
tilings, we should set ourselves about 
the creation of banks. This would im- 
mediately become necessary and una- 
voidable. We may assure ourselves, 
therefore, without danger of mistake, 
that the idea of an exclusively metallic 
currency is totally incompatible, in the 
existing state of the world, with an ac- 
tive and extensive commerce. It is in- 
consistent, too, with the greatest good 
of the greatest number ; and therefore I 
oppose it. 

But, Sir, how are we to get through 
the first experiment, so as to be able to 
try that which is to be final and ulti- 
mate, that is to say, how are we to get 
rid of the State banks ? How is this to 
be accomplished ? Of the Bank of the 
United States, indeed, we may free our- 
selves readily ; but how are we to anni- 
hilate the State banks ? We did not 
speak them into being; we cannot speak 
them out of being. They did not origi- 
nate in any exercise of our power; nor 
do they owe their continuance to our in- 
dulgence. They are responsible to the 
States ; to us they are irresponsible. We 
cannot act upon them ; we can only act 
with them; and the expectation, as it 
would appear, is, that, by zealously co- 
operating with the government in carry- 
ing into operation its new theorj^ they 
may disprove the necessity of their own 
existence, and fairly work themselves 
out of the woi'ld ! Sir, I ask once more, 
Is a great and intelligent community to 
endure patiently all sorts of suffering for 
fantasies like these ? How charmingly 
practicable, how delightfully probable, 
all this looks! 

I find it impossible, Mr. President, to 
believe that the removal of the deposits 



arose in any such purpose as is now 
avowed. I believe all this to be an 
after-thought. The removal was re- 
solved on as a strong measure against 
the bank; and now that it has been 
attended with consequences not at aU 
apprehended from it, instead of being 
promptly retracted, as it should have 
been, it is to be justified on the ground 
of a grand experiment, above the reach 
of common sagacity, and dropped down, 
as it were, from the clouds, "to witch 
the world with noble policy." It is 
not credible, not possible, Sir, that, six 
months ago, the administration sud- 
denly started off to astonish mankind 
with its new inventions in politics, and 
that it then began its magnificent project 
by removing the deposits as its first op- 
eration. No, Sir, no such thing. The 
removal of the deposits was a blow at 
the bank, and nothing more; and if it 
had succeeded, we should have heard 
nothing of any project for the final put- 
ting- down of all State banks. No, Sir, 
not one word. We should have heard, 
on the contrary, only of their usefulness, 
their excellence, and their exact adapta- 
tion to the uses and necessities of this 
government. But the experiment of 
making successful use of State banks 
having failed, completely failed, in this 
the very first endeavor; the State banks 
having already proved themselves not 
able to fill the place and perform the 
duties of a national bank, although 
highly useful in their appropriate sphere ; 
and the disastrous consequences of the 
measures of government coming thick 
and fast upon us, the professed object of 
the whole movement is at once changed, 
and the cry now is, Down with all the 
State banks ! Down with all the State 
banks ! and let us return to our embraces 
of solid gold and solid silver ! 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THK 7tii 
OF MAY, 1?34, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST AGAINST 
THE RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF THE 28th OF MARCH. 



Mr. President, — I feel the magni- 
tude of this question. We are coming to a 
vote which cannot fail to produce impor- 
tant effects on the character of the Senate, 
and the character of the government. 

Unhappily, Sir, the Senate finds itself 
involved in a controversy with the Pres- 
ident of the United States ; a man who 
has rendered most distinguished services 
to his country, who has hitherto pos- 
sessed a degree of popular favor per- 
haps never exceeded, and whose honesty 
of motive and integrity of purpose are 
still admitted by those who maintain 
that his administration has fallen into 
lamentable errors. 

On some of the interesting questions in 
regard to which the President and Senate 
hold opposite opinions, the more popular 
branch of the legislature concurs with 
the executive. It is not to be concealed 
that the Senate is engaged against im- 
posing odds. It can sustain itself only 
by its own prudence and the justice of 
its cause. It has no patronage by wliich 
to secure friends ; it can raise up no ad- 
vocates through the dispensation of fa- 
vors, for it has no favors to dispense. 
Its very constitution, as a body whose 
members are elected for a long term, is 
capable of being rendered obnoxious, 
and is daily made the subject of oppro- 
brious remark. It is already denounced 
as independent of the people, and aris- 
tocratic. Nor is it, like the other hou.se, 
powerful in its numbers ; not being, like 
that, so large as that its members come 
constantly in direct and extensive con- 



tact with the whole people. Under 
these disadvantages, Sir, whicli, we may 
be assured, will be pressed and urged to 
the utmost length, tliere is but one course 
for us. The Senate must stan<l on its 
rendered reasons. It must put forth the 
grovuids of its proceedings, and it must 
then rely on the intelligence and patri- 
otism of the people to carry it through 
the contest. 

As an individual member of tlie Sou- 
ate, it gives me great pain to be engaged 
in such a conflict with the executive 
government. Tlie occurrences of the 
last session are fresh in the recollection 
of aU of us; and having felt it to be 
my duty, at that time, to give my cur- 
dial support to highly important meas- 
ures of the administration, I ardently 
hoped that nothing might occur to place 
me afterwards in an attitude of opposi- 
tion. In all respects, and in every way, 
it would have been far more agreeable 
to me to find nothing in the measures of 
tlie executive government which I could 
not cheerfully support. Tlio present 
occa-sion of ilifferem-e h;us not been 
sought or made by me. It is thrust 
upon me, in opposition to strong opin- 
ions and wishes, on my part not con- 
cealed. The interference with the jniblic 
deposits dispelled all hope of continued 
concurrence witli the administration, 
and was a measure so uncalli-d for, so 
unnecessary, and, in my juilgment, ho 
illegal and indefensible, tiiat, with what- 
ever reluctance it might be ojiposeil by 
me, opposition was unavoidable. 



368 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



The paper before us has grown out of 
this interference. It is a paper which 
cannot be treated with indifference. 
The doctrines whicli it advances, the 
circumstances which have attended its 
transmission to the Senate, and the 
manner in which the Senate may now 
dispose of it, will form a memorable era 
in the history of the government. We 
are either to enter it on our journals, 
concur in its sentiments, and submit to 
its rebuke, or we must answer it, with 
the respect due to the chief magistrate, 
but with such animadversion on its doc- 
trines as they deserve, and with the 
firmness imposed upon us by our public 
duties. 

I shall proceed, then. Sir, to consider 
the circumstances which gave rise to 
this Protest; to examine the principles 
which it attempts to establish; and to 
compare those principles with the Con- 
stitution and the laws. 

On the 28th day of March, the Senate 
adopted a resolution declaring that, " in 
the late executive proceedings in relation 
to the public revenue, the President had 
assumed a power not conferred by the 
Constitution and laws, but in deroga- 
tion of both." In that resolution I con- 
curred. 

It is not a direct question, now again 
before us, whether the President really 
liad assumed such illegal power; that 
point is decided, so far as the Senate 
ever can decide it. But the Protest de-. 
nies that, supposing the President to 
have assumed such illegal power, the 
Senate could properly pass the resolu- 
tion; or, what is the same thing, it de- 
nies that the Senate could, in this way, 
express any opinion about it. It denies 
tliat the Senate has any right, by reso- 
lution, in this or any other case, to ex- 
press disapprobation of the President's 
conduct, let that conduct be what it may ; 
and this, one of the leading doctrines of 
the Protest, I propose to consider. But 
as I concurred in the resolution of the 
28th of March, and did not trouble the 
Senate, at that time, with any statement 
of my own reasons, I will avail myself 
of this opportunity to explain, shortly, 
what those reasons were. 



In the first place, then, I have to say, 
that I did not vote for the resolution on 
the mere ground of the removal of Mr. 
Duane from the office of Secretary of 
the Treasury. Although I disapprove 
of the removal altogether, yet the power 
of removal does exist in the President, 
according to the established construction 
of the Constitution; and therefore, al- 
though in a particular case it may be 
abused, and, in my opinion, was abused 
in this case, yet its exercise cannot be 
justly said to be an assumption or usur- 
pation. We must all agree that Mr. 
Duane is out of office. He has, there- 
fore, been removed by a power con- 
stitutionally competent to remove him, 
whatever may be thought of the exercise 
of that power under the circumstances 
of the case. 

If, then, the act of removing the Sec- 
retary be not the assumption of power 
which the resolution declares, in what is 
that assumption found? Before giving 
a precise answer to this in;[uiry, allow 
me to recur to some of the principal 
previous events. 

At the end of the last session of Con- 
gress, the public moneys of the United 
States were still in their proper place. 
That place was fixed by the law of the 
land, and no power of change was con- 
ferred on any other human being than 
the Secretary of the Treasury. On him 
the power of change was conferred, to 
be exercised by himself, if emergency 
should arise, and to be exercised for 
reasons which he was bound to lay be- 
fore Congress. No other officer of the 
government had the slightest pretence 
of authority to lay his hand on these 
moneys for the purpose of changing the 
place of their custody. All the other 
heads of departments together could not 
touch them. The President could not 
touch them. The power of change was 
a trust confided to the discretion of the 
Secretary, and to his discretion alone. 
The President had no more authority to 
take upon himself this duty, thus as- 
signed expressly by law to the Secretary, 
than he had to make the annual report 
to Congress, or the annual commercial 
statements, or to perform any other ser- 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



369 



vice which the law specially requires of 
the Secretary. He niiglit just as well 
sign the warrants for moneys, in tlie or- 
dinary daily disbursements of govern- 
ment, instead of the Secretar}'. The 
statute had assigned the especial duty of 
removing the deposits, if removed at 
all, to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
and to him alone. The consideration 
of the propriety or necessity of removal 
j must be the consideration of the Secre- 
I tary; the decision to remove, his decis- 
' ion ; and the act of removal, his act. 
Now, Sir, on the 18th day of Septem- 
ber last, a resolution was taken to remove 
these deposits from their legislative, that 
is to say, their legal custody. W/iose 
resolution was this ? On the 1st of Octo- 
ber, they were removed. Bi/ ivhose power 
was this done f The papers necessary 
to accomplish the removal (that is, the 
orders and drafts) are, it is true, sigTied 
by the Secretary. The President's name 
is not subscribed to them ; nor does the 
Secretary, in any of them, recite or de- 
clare that he does the act by direction 
of the President, or on the President's 
responsibility. In form, the whole pro- 
ceeding is the proceeding of the Secre- 
tary, and, as such, had the legal effect. 
The deposits were removed. But whose 
act was it, in truth and reality? Whose 
will accomplished it? On v/hose re- 
sponsibility was it adopted? 

These questions are all explicitly an- 
swered by the President himself, in the 
paper, under his own hand, read to the 
Cabinet on the 18th of September, and 
published by his authority. In this pa- 
per the President declares, in so many 
words, that he begs his Cabinet to con- 
sider the proposed measure as his own ; 
that its responsibility has been assumed 
by hira ; and that he names the first day 
of October as a period proper for its 
execution. 

Now, Sir, it is precisely this which I 
deem an assumption of power not con- 
ferred by the Constitution and laws. 
T think the law did not give this author- 
ity to the President, nor impo.se on him 
the responsibility of its exercise. It is 
evident that, in tins removal, the Sec- 
retary was in reality nothing but the 



scribe; he was the pen in the President's 
liand, and no more. Nothing depended 
on his discretion, hia judgment, or hia 
responsibility. Tiie removal, indeed, 
lias been admitted and defended in the 
Senate, as the direct act of the Presi- 
dent himself. Tiiis, Sir, is what I call 
assumption of power. If tlie President 
had issued an order for the removal of 
the deposits in his own name, and un- 
der his own hand, it would have been 
an illegal order, and the bank wouM 
not have been at liberty to obey it. For 
the same reason, if the Secretai7'3 order 
had recited that it was issued by the 
President's direction, and on the Presi- 
dent's authority, it would have shown 
on its face that it was illegal and in- 
valid. No one can doubt that. The 
act of removal, to be lawful, must be 
the bond fide act of the Secretary; his 
judgment, the result of his deliberations, 
the volition of his mind. All are able 
to see the difference between the power 
to remove the Secretaiy from office, and 
the power to control him, in all or any 
of his duties, while in office. The law 
charges the officer, whoever he may be, 
with the performance of certain duties. 
The President, with the consent of the 
Senate, appoints an individual to be 
such officer; and this individual he may 
remove, if he so please; but, until re- 
moved, he is the officer, and remains 
charged with the duties of his station, 
duties which nobody else can perform, 
and for the neglect or violation of which 
he is liable to be impeached. 

Tlie distinction is visible and broad 
between tiie power of removal and the 
power to control an officer not removed. 
The President, it is true, may termi- 
nate his political life; but he cannot 
control his powers Jind functions, and act 
upon him as a merp machine, while ho 
is allowed to live. Tlie power of control 
and direction, nowhere gis'en. certainly, 
by any express provision of the Consti- 
tution or laws, is derived, by those who 
maintain it, from tiie right of removal; 
that is to say, it is a con.structive jiower; 
it has no express warrant in the Cinisti- 
tution. A very important power, then, 
is raised by construction in the firet 



24 



370 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



place; and being thus raised, it becomes 
a fountain out of whicli other important 
powers, raised also by construction, are 
to be supplied. There is no little dan- 
ger that such a mode of reasoning may 
be carried too far. It cannot be main- 
tained that the power of direct control 
necessarily flows from the power of re- 
moval. Suppose it had been decided in 
1789, when the question was debated, 
that the President does not possess the 
power of removal ; will it be contended, 
that, in that case, his right of interfer- 
ence with the acts and duties of execu- 
tive officers would be less than it now 
is? The reason of the thing would 
seem to be the other way. If the Presi- 
dent may remove an incumbent when 
he becomes satisfied of his unfaithful- 
ness and incapacity, there would appear 
to be less necessity to give him also a 
right of control, than there would be if 
he could not remove him. 

We may try this question by suppos- 
ing it to arise in a judicial proceeding. 
If the Secretary of the Treasury were 
impeached for removing the deposits, 
could he justify himself by saying that 
he did it by the President's direction? 
If he could, then no executive officer 
could ever be impeached who obeys the 
President; and the whole notion of mak- 
ing such officers impeachable at all 
would be farcical. If he could not so 
justify himself, (and all will allow he 
could not,) the reason can only be that 
the act of removal is his own act; the 
power, a power confided to him, for the 
just exercise of which the law looks to 
his discretion, his honesty, and his di- 
rect responsibility. 

Now, Sir, the President wishes the 
world to understand that he himself 
decided on the question of the removal 
of the deposits; that he took the whole 
responsibility of the measure upon him- 
self; that he wished it to be considered 
his own act; that he not only himself 
decided that the thing should be done, 
but regulated its details also, and named 
the day for carrying it into effect. 

I have always entertained a very erro- 
neous view of the partition of powers, 
and of the true nature of official respon- 



sibility under our Constitution, if this 
be not a plain case of the assumption 
of power. 

The legislature had fixed a place, by 1 
law, for the keeping of the public 
money. They had, at the same time 
and by the same law, created and con- 
ferred a power of removal, to be exer- 
cised contingently. This power they 
had vested in the Secretary, by express 
words. The law did not say that the , 
deposits should be made in the bank, 
unless the President should order other- 
wise; but it did say that they should 
be made there, unless the Secretary of 
the Treasury should order otherwise. I 
put it to the plain sense and common 
candor of all men, whether the dis- 
cretion thus to be exercised over the 
subject was not the Secretary's own 
personal discretion; and whether, there- 
fore, the interposition of the authority 
of another, acting directly and conclu- 
sively on the subject, deciding the whole 
question, even in its particulars and de- 
tails, be not an assumption of power? 

The Senate regarded this interposition 
as an encroachment by the executive 
on other branches of the government; 
as an interference with the legislative 
disposition of the public treasure. It 
was strongly and forcibly urged, yester- 
day, by the honorable member from 
South Carolina, that the true and only 
mode of preserving any balance of 
power, in mixed governments, is to 
keep an exact balance. This is very 
true, and to this end encroachment must 
be resisted at the first step. The ques- 
tion is, therefore, whether, upon the 
true principles of the Constitution, this 
exercise of power by the President can 
be justified. ^Whether the consequen- 
ces be prejudicial or not, if there be an 
illegal exercise of power, it is to be 
resisted in the proper manner. Even if 
no harm or inconvenience result from 
transgressing the boundary, the intru- 
sion is not to be suffered to pass un- 
noticed. Every encroachment, gretl^r 
small, is important enough to awaken 
the attention of those who are intrusted 
with the preservation of a constitutional 
cover nment. We are not to wait till 



--ylA 



i 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



371 



great public mischiefs come, till the gov- 
ernment is overthrown, or liberty itself 
put into extreme jeopardy. We should 
not be worthy sons of our fathers were 
we so to regard great questions affecting 
the general freedom. Those fathers 
accomplished the Revolution on a strict 
question of principle. The Parliament 
of Great Britain asserted a right to tax 
the Colonies in all cases whatsoever; 
and it was precisely on this question 
that they made the Revolution turn. 
The amount of taxation was trifling, 
but the claim itself was inconsistent 
with liberty; and that was, in their eyes, 
enough. It was against the recital of 
an act of Parliament, rather than 
against any suffering under its enact- 
ments, that they took up arms. They 
went to war against a preamble. They 
fought seven years against a declaration. 
They poured out their treasures and their 
blood like water, in a contest against an 
assertion which those less sagacious and 
not so well schooled in the principles of 
civil libertv would have regarded as 
barren phraseology, or mere parade of 
words. They saw in the claim of the 
British Parliament a seminal principle 
of mischief, the germ of unjust power; 
they detected it, dragged it forth from 
underneath its plausible disguises, struck 
at it; nor did it elude either their steady 
eye or their well-directed blow till they 
had extirpated and destroyed it, to the 
smallest fibre. On this question of 
principle, while actual suffering was 
yet afar off, they raised their flag against 
a power, to which, for purposes of for- 
eign conquest and subjugation, Rome, 
in the height of her glory, is not to be 
compared; a power which has dotted 
over the surface of the whole globe 
with her possessions and military posts, 
whose morning drum-beat, following 
the sun, and keeping company with the 
hours, circles the earth with one contin- 
uous and unbroken strain of the martial 
airs ofv En gland. 
"^The necessity of holding strictly to 
the principle upon which free govern- 
ments are constructed, and to those pre- 
cise lines which fix the partitions of 
power between different branches, is as 



plain, if not as cogent, as that of resist- 
ing, as our fathers did, the strides of 
the parent country against the lights 
of the Colonies; because, whether Uie 
power which exceeds its just limits be 
foreign or domestic, whether it be tlie 
encroachment of all branches on the 
rights of the people, or that of one 
branch on the rights of others, in either 
case the balanced and well-adjusted 
machinery of free government is dis- 
turbed, and, if the derangement go on, 
the whole system must fall. 

But the case before us is not a case of 
merely theoretic infringement; nor is it 
one of trifling imjiortance. Far other- 
wise. It respects one of the highest and 
most important of all the powers of gov- 
ernment; that is to say, the custody and 
control of the public money. The act 
of removing the deposits, which I now 
consider as the President's act, and 
which his friends on this floor defend as 
his act, took the national purse from 
beneath the security and guardianship 
of the law, and disposed of its contents, 
in parcels, in such places of deposit as 
he chose to select. At this very mo- 
ment, every dollar of the public treasure 
is subject, so far as respects its custody 
and safe-keeping, to his unlimited con- 
trol. We know not where it is to-day ; 
still less do we know where it may be 
to-morrow. 

But, Mr. President, this is not aU. 
There is another part of the case, which 
has not been so much discussed, but 
which appears to me to be still more in- 
defensible in its character. It is some- 
thing which may well teach us the 
tendency of power to move forward 
with accelerated pace, if it be allowed 
to take the first step. The Bank of the 
United States, in addition to the ser- 
vices rendered to the treasury, gave for 
its charUir, and for the use of the public 
deposits, a hoiiu.< or outright sum of one 
million and a half of dollars. Iliis 
sum was paid by the bank into the 
treasury soon after the commencement 
of its charter. In the act whicli passed 
both houses for renewing tlie charter, 
in 18:}2, it was provided tliat tlie bank, 
for the same consideration, should pay 



372 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



two hundred thousand dollars a year 
during the period for which it was pro- 
posed to renew it. A similar provision 
is in the bill which I asked leave to in- 
troduce some weeks ago. Now, Sir, this 
shows that the custody of the deposits 
is a benefit for which a bank may well 
afford to pay a large annual sum. The 
banks which now hold the deposits pay 
nothing to the public; they give no 
bonus, they pay no annuity. But this 
loss of so much money is not the worst 
part of the case, nor that which ought 
most to alarm us. Although they pay 
nothing to the public, they do pay, 
nevertheless, such sums, and for such 
uses, as may be agreed upon between 
themselves and the executive govern- 
ment. We are officially informed that 
an officer is appointed by the Secretary 
of the Treasury to inspect or sui^erin- 
tend these selected banks; and this 
officer is compensated by a salary fixed 
by the executive, agreed to by the 
banks, and paid by them. I ask. Sir, 
if there can be a more irregular or 
a more illegal transaction than this? 
Whose money is it out of which this 
salary is paid? Is it not money justly 
due to the United States, and paid, be- 
cause it is so due, for the advantage of 
holding the deposits? If a dollar is re- 
ceived on that account, is not its only 
true destination into the general treas- 
uiy of the government? And who has 
authority, without law, to create an 
office, to fix a salary, and to pay that 
salary out of this money? Here is an 
inspector or supervisor of the deposit 
banks. But what law has provided for 
such an officer? What commission has 
he received? Wlio concurred in his 
appointment? What oath does he 
take? How is he to be punished or 
impeached if he colludes with any of 
these banks to embezzle the public 
money or defraud the government? 
The value of the use of this public 
money to the deposit banks is probably 
two hundred thousand dollars a year; 
or, if less than that, it is yet, certainly, 
a very great sum. May the President 
appoint whatever officers he pleases, 
with whatever duties he pleases, and 



pay them as much as he pleases, out of 
the moneys thus paid by the banks, for 
the sake of having the deposits? 

Mr. President, the executive claim of 
power is exactly this, that the President 
may keep the money of the public in 
whatever banks he chooses, on whatever 
terms he chooses, and apply the sums 
which these banks are willing to pay 
for its use to whatever purposes he 
chooses. These sums are not to come 
into the general treasury. They are to 
be appropriated before they get there; 
they are never to be brought under the 
control of Congress ; they are to be paid 
to officers and agents not known to the 
law, not nominated to the Senate, and 
responsible to nobody but the executive 
itself. I ask gentlemen if all this be 
lawful. Are they prepared to defend 
it? Will they stand up and justify it? 
In my opinion, Sir, it is a clear and 
most dangerous assumption of power. 
It is the creation of office without law ; 
the appointment to office without con- 
sulting the Senate ; the establishment of 
a salary without law ; and the payment 
of that salary out of a fund which it- 
self is derived from the use of the public 
treasures. This, Sir, is my other reason 
for concurring in the vote of the 28th 
of March ; and on these grounds I leave 
the propriety of that vote, so far as I 
am concerned with it, to be judged of 
by the country. 

But, Sir, the President denies the 
power of the Senate to pass any such 
resolution, on any ground whatever. 
Suppose the declaration contained in 
the resolution to be true; suppose the 
President had, in fact, assumed powers 
not granted to him; does the Senate 
possess the right to declare its opinion, 
affirming this fact, or does it not? I 
maintain that the Senate does possess 
such a power ; the President denies it. 

Mr. President, we need not look far, 
nor search deep, for the foundation of 
this right in the Senate. It is close ^ 
hand, and clearly visible. In the ^rst 
place, it is the right of self-defence. In 
the second place, it is a right founded 
on the duty of representative bodies, in 
a free government, to defend the public 



THE PRESIDENTIAL TKOTEST. 



373 



liberty against encroachment. We must 
presume that the Senate honestly enter- 
tained the opinion expressed in the res- 
olution of the 28th of JMarch; and, 
entertaining that opinion, its right to 
express it is but the necessary conse- 
quence of its right to defend its own 
constitutional authority, as one branch of 
the government. This is its clear right, 
and this, too, is its imperative duty. 

H one or both the other branches 
of the government happen to do that 
which appears to us inconsistent with 
the constitutional rights of the Senate, 
will any one say that the Senate is yet 
bound to be passive, and to be silent? 
to do nothing, and to say nothing? Or, 
if one branch appears to encroach on 
the rights of the other two, have these 
two no power of remonstrance, com- 
plaint, or resistance? Sir, the question 
may be put in a still more striking form. 
Has the Senate a right to have an opinion 
in a case of this kind? If it may have 
an opinion, how is that opinion to be 
ascertained but by resolution and vote? 
The objection must go the whole length; 
it must maintain tliat the Senate has not 
only no right to express opinions, but no 
right to form opinions, on the conduct 
of tlie executive government, though in 
matters intimately affecting the powers 
and duties of the Senate itself. It is 
not possible, Sir, that such a doctrine 
can be maintained for a single moment. 
All political bodies resist what they 
deem encroachments by resolutions ex- 
pressive of their sentiments, and their 
purpose to resist such encroachments. 
When sucli a resolution is presented for 
its consideration, the question is, whether 
it be true; not whether the body has au- 
thority to pass it, admitting it to be true. 
The Senate, like other public bodies, is 
perfectly justifiable in defending, in this 
mode, either its legislative or executive 
authority. The usages of Parliament, 
the practice in our State legishitures and 
assemblies, both before and since the 
Revolution, and precedents in the Senate 
itself, fully maintain this right. The 
case of the Panama mission is in point. 
In that case, Mr. Branch, from North 
Carolina, introduced a resolution, which, 



after reciting that the President, in his 
annual message and in his coinmunica^ 
tion to the Senate, had a.s.serted that lie 
possessed an authority to make certain 
appointments, uUhoiujh (he appointments 
had not been made, went on to declare that 
" a silent acquiescence on the part of this 
hodtj may, at some future lime, be drawn 
into dangerous precedent" ; and to re- 
solve, therefore, tiiat the President does 
not possess the right or power said to be 
claimed by him. This resolution was 
discussed, and finally laid on tlie table. 
But the question discussed was, whether 
the resolution was correct, in fact and 
principle; not whether the Senate had 
any right to pass such resolution. So 
far as I remember, no one pretended 
that, if the President had exceeded his 
authority, the Senate might not so de- 
clare by resolution. No one ventured 
to contend that, whether the rights of 
the Senate were invaded or not, the Sen- 
ate must hold its peace. 

The Protest labors strenuously to show 
that the Senate adopted the resolution of 
the 28th of March, under 'iti^Ju(lici<d au- 
thority. The reason of tliis attenqjt is 
obvious enough. If the Senate, in its 
judicial character, has been trying the 
President, then he has not had a regular 
and formal tr'mi; and, on that ground, 
it is hoped the public sympathy may be 
moved. But the Senate has acted not 
in its judicial, but in its legislative 
capacity. As a legislative body, it has 
defended its own just authority, and 
the autliority of the other branch of the 
legislature. Whatever attacks our own 
rigiits and privileges, or whatever en- 
croaches on the power of both houses, 
we may oppose and resist, by declara- 
tion, resolution, or other similar pro- 
ceedings. If we look to tlie bdoks of 
precedents, if we examine the jouriiivlH 
of legislative bodies, we find everywlieie 
instances of such proceedings. 

It is to be observed, Sir, tliat the 
Protest imposes silence on the IIoii.se of 
Representatives as well as on the Si-nate. 
It declares tiiat no power is ct)iiferred on 
either branch of the legislature, to con- 
sider or decide upon odicial acts of the 
executive, for the purpose of censure, 



374 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



and without a view to legislation or im- 
peachment. This, I think, Sir, is pretty 
high-toned pretension. According to this 
doctrine, neither house could assert its 
own rights, however the executive might 
assail them; neither house could point 
out the danger to the people, however 
fast executive encroachment might be 
extending itself, or whatever danger it 
miglit threaten to the public liberties. 
If the two houses of Congress may not 
express an opinion of executive con- 
duct by resolution, there is the same 
reason why they should not express it 
in any other form, or by any other 
mode of proceeding. Indeed, the Pro- 
test limits both houses, expressly, to the 
case of impeachment. If the House of 
Representatives are not about to im- 
peach the President, they have nothing 
to say of his measures or of his conduct ; 
and unless the Senate are engaged in 
trying an impeachment, their mouths, 
too, are stopped. It is the practice of 
the President to send us an annual mes- 
sage, in which he rehearses the general 
proceedings of the executive for the 
past year. This message we refer to 
our committees for consideration. But, 
according to the doctrine of the Protest, 
they can express no opinion upon any 
executive proceeding upon which it gives 
information. Suppose the President had 
told us, in his last annual message, what 
he had previously told us in his cabinet 
paper, that the removal of the deposits 
was his act, done on his responsibility; 
and that the Secretary of the Treasury 
had exercised no discretion, formed no 
judgment, presumed to have no opinion 
whatever, on the subject. This part of 
the message would have been referred to 
the committee on finance ; but what 
could they say? They think it shows a 
plain violation of the Constitution and 
the laws; but the President is not im- 
peached; therefore they can express no 
censure. They think it a direct inva- 
sion of legislative power, but they must 
not say so. They may, indeed, com- 
mend, if they can. The grateful busi- 
ness of praise .is lawful to them ; but if, 
instead of commendation and applause, 
they find cause for disapprobation, cen- 



sure, or alarm, the Protest enjoins upon 
them absolute silence. 

Formerly, Sir, it was a practice for the 
President to meet both houses, at the 
opening of the session, and deliver a 
speech, as is still the usage of some of 
the State legislatures. To this speech 
there was an answer from each house, 
and those answers expressed, freely, the 
sentiments of the house upon all the 
merits and faults of the administra- 
tion. The discussion of the topics con- 
tained in the speech, and the debate 
on the answers, usually drew out the 
whole force of parties, and lasted some- 
times a week. President Washington's 
conduct, in every year of his admin- 
istration, was thus freely and publicly 
canvassed. He did not complain of it ; 
he did not doubt that both houses had a 
perfect right to comment, with the ut- 
most latitude, consistent with decorum, 
upon all his measures. Answers, or 
amendments to answers, were not un- 
frequently proposed, very hostile to his 
own course of public policy, if not some- 
times bordering on disrespect. And 
when they did express respect and re- 
gard, there were votes ready to be re- 
corded against the expression of those 
sentiments. To all this President Wash- 
ington took no exception; for he well 
knew that these, and similar proceed- 
ings, belonged to the power of popular 
bodies. But if the President were now 
to meet us with a speech, and should in- 
form us of measures, adopted by him- 
self in the recess, which should appear 
to us the most plain, palpable, and dan- 
gerous violations of the Constitution, we 
must, nevertheless, either keep respect- 
ful silence, or fill our answer merely with 
courtly phrases of approbation. 

Mr. President, I know not who wrote 
this Protest, but I confess I am aston- 
ished, truly astonished, as well at the 
want of knowledge which it displays of 
constitutional law, as at the high and 
dangerous pretensions which it puts 
forth. Neither branch of the legisla- 
ture can express censure upon the Presi- 
dent's conduct! Suppose, Sir, that we 
should see him enlisting troops and rais- 
ing an army, can we say nothing, and 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



375 



do nothing? Suppose he were to declare 
war against a foreign power, and put 
the army and the fleet in action; are we 
still to be silent? Suppose we should see 
him borrowing money on the credit of 
the United States; are we yet to wait 
for impeachment? Indeed, Sir, in re- 
gard to this borrowing money on the 
credit of the United States, I wish to 
call the attention of the Senate, not 
only to what might happen, but to what 
has actually happened. We are in- 
formed that the Post-Office Department, 
a department over which the President 
claims the same control as over the rest, 
has actually borrowed near half a million of 
money on the credit of the United States. 

Mr. President, the first power granted 
to Congress by the Constitution is the 
power to lay taxes; the second, the 
power to borrow money on the credit 
of the United States. Now, Sir, where 
does the executive find its authority, in 
or through any department, to borrow 
money without authority of Congi'ess ? 
This proceeding appears to me wholly 
illegal, and reprehensible in a very high 
degree. It may be said that it is not 
true that this money is borrowed on the 
credit of the United States, but that it 
is borrowed on the credit of the Post- 
Office Department. But that would be 
mere evasion. The department is but a 
name. It is an office, and nothing more. 
The banks have not lent this money to 
any officer. If Congress should abolish 
the whole department to-morrow, would 
the banks not expect the United States 
to replace this borrowed money? The 
money, then, is borrowed on the credit 
of the United States, an act which Con- 
gress alone is competent to authorize. 
If the Post-Office Depai'tmeiit may bor- 
row money, so may the War Department 
and the Navy Department. If half a 
million may be borrowed, ten millions 
may be borrowed. What, then, if this 
transaction shall be justified, is to hinder 
the executive from borrowing money to 
maintain fleets and armies, or for any 
other purpose, at his pleasure, without 
any authority of law? Yet even this, 
according to the doctrine of the Protest, 
we have no right to complain of. We 



have no right to declare that an execu- 
tive department has violated the Consti- 
tution and broken tlie law, by borrowing 
money on the credit of the United Stales. 
Nor could we make a similar declara- 
tion, if we were to see the executive, by 
means of this borrowed money, enlist- 
ing armies and equipping fleets. And 
yet. Sir, the President has found no diffi- 
culty, heretofore, in expressing his opin- 
ions, in a paper not called for by the exer- 
cise of any official duty, upon the conduct 
and proceedings of the two houses of 
Congress. At the commencement of 
this session, he sent us a message, com- 
menting on the land bill wliicli the two 
houses passed at the end of the last ses- 
sion. That bill he had not approved, 
nor had he returned it with objections. 
Congress was dissolved; and the bill, 
therefore, was completely dead, and 
could not be revived. No communica- 
tion from him could have the least pos- 
sible effect as an official act. Yet he 
saw fit to send a message on the subject, 
and in that message he very freely de- 
clares his opinion that the bill which 
had passed both houses began with an 
entire subversion of every one of the com- 
pacts by which the United States became 
possessed of their Western domain; that 
one of its provisions was in direct and 
undisguised violation of the pledge given 
by Congress to the States ; that the Con- 
stitution provides that these compacts 
shall be untouched by the legislative 
power, which can only make needful 
rules and regulations; and that all be- 
yond that is an assumption of undelegated 
power. 

These are the terms in which the Pres- 
ident speaks of an act of the two houses ; 
not in an official paper, not in a com- 
munication which it was necessary for 
him to make to them; but in a message, 
adopted only as a mode through wliich 
to make public these opinions. After 
this, it would seem too late to enjoin on 
the houses of Congress a total forbear- 
ance from all comment on tho measures 
of the executive. 

Not only is it the right of both hou.sns, 
or of either, to resist, by vote, declara- 
tion, or resolution, whatever it may 



376 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



deem an encroachment of executive 
power, but it is also undoubtedly the 
right of either house to oppose, in like 
manner, any encroachment by the other. 
The two houses have each its own appro- 
priate powers and authorities, which it 
is bound to preserve. They have, too, 
different constituents. The members of 
the Senate are representatives of States ; 
and it is in the Senate alone that the 
four-and- twenty States, as political bod- 
ies, have a direct influence in the legis- 
lative and executive powers of this gov- 
ernment. He is a strange advocate of 
State rights, who maintains that this 
body, thus representing the States, and 
thus being the strictly federal branch of 
the legislature, may not assert and main- 
tain all and singular its own powers and 
privileges, against either or both of the 
other branches. 

If any thing be done or threatened 
derogatory to the rights of the States, as 
secured by the organization of the Sen- 
ate, may we not lift up our voices against 
it? Suppose the House of Representa- 
tives should vote that the Senate ought 
not to propose amendments to revenue 
bills ; would it be the duty of the Senate 
to take no notice of such proceeding? 
Or, if we were to see the President issu- 
ing commissions to office to persons who 
had never been nominated to the Senate, 
are we not to remonstrate? 

Sir, there is no end of cases, no end of 
illustrations. The doctrines of the Pro- 
test, in this respect, cannot stand the 
slightest scrutiny; they are blown away 
by the first breath of discussion. 

And yet, Sir, it is easy to perceive 
why this right of declaring its sentiments 
respecting the conduct of the executive 
is denied to either house, in its legisla- 
tive capacity. It is merely that the 
Senate might be presented in the odious 
light of trying the President, judicially, 
without regular accusation or hearing. 
The Protest declares that the President 
is charged with a crime, and, icithout hear- 
ing or trial, found guilty and condemned. 
This is evidently an attempt to appeal 
to popular feeling, and to represent the 
President as unjustly treated and un- 
fairly tried Sir, it is a false appeal. 



The President has not been tried at 
all; he has not been accused; he has 
not been charged with crime; he has 
not been condemned. Accusation, trial, 
and sentence are terms belonging to 
judicial proceedings. But the Senate 
has been engaged in no such pro- 
ceeding. The resolution of the 28th of 
March was not an exercise of judicial 
power, either in form, in substance, or 
in intent. Everybody knows that the 
Senate can exercise no judicial power un- 
til articles of impeachment are brought 
before it. It is then to proceed, by ac- 
cusation and answer, hearing, trial, and 
judgment. But there has been no im- 
peachment, no answer, no hearing, no 
judgment. All that the Senate did was 
to pass a resolution, in legislative form, 
declaring its opinion of certain acts of 
the executive. This resolution imputed 
no crime ; it charged no corrupt motive ; 
it proposed no punishment. It was di- 
rected, not against the President person- 
ally, but against the act; and that act 
it declared to be, in its judgment, an as- 
sumption of authority not warranted by 
the Constitution. 

It is in vain that the Protest attempts 
to shift the resolution to the judicial 
character of the Senate. The case is too 
plain for such an argument to be plausi- 
ble. But, in order to lay some founda- 
tion for it, the Protest, as I have already 
said, contends that neither the Senate 
nor the House of Representatives can ex- 
press its opinions on the conduct of the 
President, except in some form con- 
nected with impeachment ; so that if the 
power of impeachment did not exist, 
these two houses, though they be repre- 
sentative bodies, though one of them be 
filled by the immediate representatives 
of the people, though they be constituted 
like other popular and representative 
bodies, could not utter a syllable, al- 
though they saw the executive either 
trampling on their own rights and priv- 
ileges, or grasping at absolute authority 
and dominion over the liberties of the 
country! Sir, I hardly know how to 
speak of such claims of impunity for 
executive encroachment. I am amazed 
that any American citizen should draw 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



377 



up a paper containing such lofty pre- 
tensions; pretensions which would have 
been met with scorn in England, at any 
time since the Revolution of 1G88. A 
man who should stand up, in either 
house of the British Parliament, to main- 
tain that the house could not, by vote or 
resolution, maintain its own rights and 
privileges, would make even the Tory 
benches hang their heads for very shame. 

There was, indeed, a time when such 
proceedings were not allowed. Some of 
the kings of the Stuart race would not 
tolerate them. A signal instance of 
royal displeasure with the proceedings 
of Parliament occurred in the latter part 
of the reign of James the First. The 
House of Commons had spoken, on 
some occasion, "of its own undoubted 
rights and privileges." The king there- 
upon sent them a letter, declaring that 
he would not allow that they had any un- 
doubted rir/hls ; but that lohat they enjoyed 
they miy/it still hold by his own royal grace 
and permission. Sir Edward Coke and 
IVIr. Granville were not satisfied with 
this title to their privileges; and, under 
their lead, the house entered on its jour- 
nals a resolution asserting its privileges, 
as its own undoubted rirjht, and manifest- 
ing a determination to maintain them as 
such. Tliis, says the historian, so en- 
raged his INIajesty, that he sent for the 
journal, had it brought into the Council, 
and there, in the presence of his lords 
and great officers of state, tore out the 
offensive resolution with his own royal 
hand. He then dissolved Parliament, 
and sent its most refractory members to 
the Tower. I have no fear, certainly, 
Sir, that this English example will be 
followed, on this occasion, to its full ex- 
tent; nor would I insinuate that any 
thing outrageous has been thought of, or 
intended, except outrageous pretensions; 
but such pretensions I must impute to 
the author of this Protest, whoever that 
author may be. 

When this and the other house shall 
lose the freedom of speech and debate ; 
when they shall surrender the rights of 
publicly and freely canvassing all im- 
])ortant measures of the executive ; when 
they shall not be allowed to maintain 



their own authority and their own privi- 
leges by vote, declaration, or resolution, 
— they will then be no longer free repre- 
sentatives of a free people, but slaves 
themselves, and fit instruments to make 
slaves of others. 

The Protest, Mr. President, concedes 
what it doubtless regards as a liberal 
right of discussion to the jseople them- 
selves. But its language, even in ac- 
knowledging this riglit of tlie people to 
discuss the conduct of their servants, is 
qualified and peculiar. The free people 
of the United States, it declares, have 
an undoubted right to discuss the offi- 
cial conduct of the President in such 
language and form as they may think 
proper, "subject only to the restraints 
of truth and justice." But, then, who 
is to be judge of this trutli and justice? 
Are the people to judge for themselves, 
or are others to judge for them? The 
Protest is here speaking of /;o/i//fo/ rights, 
and not moral rigiits; and if restraints 
are imposed on political rights, it must 
follow, of course, that others are to de- 
cide whenever the case arises whether 
these restraints have been violated. It 
is strange that the writer of the Protest 
did not perceive that, by using this lan- 
guage, he was pushing tlie President 
into a direct avowal of the doctrines of 
1798. The text of the Protest and the 
text of the obnoxious act ^ of that year 
are nearly identical. 

But, Sir, if the peojile have a right to 
discuss the official conduct of the execu- 
tive, so have their representatives. We 
have been taught to regard a representa- 
tive of the people as a sentinel on the 
watch-tower of liberty. Is lie to be 
blind, though visible danger approache.s? 
Is he to be deaf, tliougli sounds of i)eril 
fill the air? Is he to be dumb, wliile a 
thousand duties impel him to raise the 
cry of alarm? Is he not, ratlier, to 
catcli tlie lowest whisper which breathes 
intention or purpose of encroachment 
on the public liberties, and to give his 
voice breath and utterance at the first 
appearance of danger? Is not liis eye 
to travel se the whole horizon with the 

1 Commonly called tlic Sedition Act, ap- 
proved Uih July, 17'J8. 



378 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



keen and eager vision of an unhooded 
hawk, detecting, through all disguises, 
every enemy advancing, in any form, 
towards the citadel which he guards? 
Sir, this watchfulness for public liberty ; 
this duty of foreseeing danger and pro- 
claiming it; this promptitude and bold- 
ness in resisting attacks on the Consti- 
tution from any quarter; this defence of 
established landmarks; this fearless re- 
sistance of whatever would transcend or 
remove them, — all belong to the repre- 
sentative character, are interwoven with 
its very nature. If deprived of them, 
an active, intelligent, faithful agent of 
the people will be converted into an 
unresisting and passive instrument of 
power. A representative body, which 
gives up these rights and duties, gives 
itself up. It is a representative body 
no longer. It has broken the tie be- 
tween itself and its constituents, and 
henceforth is fit only to be regarded as 
an inert, self-sacrificed mass, from which 
all appropriate principle of vitality has 
departed for ever. 

I have thus endeavored to vindicate 
the right of the Senate to pass the reso- 
lution of the 28th of March, notwith- 
standing the denial of that right iu the 
Protest. 

But there are other sentiments and 
opinions expi'essed in the Protest, of the 
very highest importance, and which de- 
mand nothing less than our utmost at- 
tention. 

The first object of a free people is the 
preservation of their liberty ; and liberty 
is only to be preserved by maintaining 
constitutional restraints and just di- 
visions of political power. Nothing is 
more deceptive or more dangerous than 
the pretence of a desire to simplify gov- 
ernment. The simplest governments are 
despotisms; the next simplest, limited 
monarchies; but all republics, all gov- 
ernments of law, must impose numerous 
limitations and qualifications of author- 
ity, and give many positive and many 
qualified rights. In other words, they 
must be subject to rule and regulation. 
This is the very essence of free political 
institutions. The spirit of liberty is, 
indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but 



it is also a sharp-sighted spirit; it is a 
cautious, sagacious, discriminating, far- 
seeing intelligence; it is jealous of en- 
ci'oachment, jealous of power, jealous of 
man. It demands checks; it seeks for 
guards; it insists on securities; it in- 
trenches itself behind strong defences, 
and fortifies itself with all possible care 
against the assaults of ambition and 
passion. It does not trust the amiable 
weaknesses of human nature, and there- 
fore it will not permit power to overstep 
its prescribed limits, though benevo- 
lence, good intent, and patriotic pur- 
pose come along with it. Neither does 
it satisfy itself with flashy and tempo- 
rary resistance to illegal authority. Far 
otherwise. It seeks for duration and 
permanence. It looks before and after; 
and, building on the experience of ages 
which are past, it labors diligently for 
the benefit of ages to come. This is the 
nature of constitutional liberty ; and this 
is our liberty, if we will rightly under- 
stand and preserve it. Every free gov- 
ernment is necessarily complicated, lie- 
cause all such governments establish 
restraints, as well on the power of gov- 
ernment itself as on that of individuals. 
If we will abolish the distinction of 
branches, and have but one branch; if 
we will abolish jury trials, and leave all 
to the judge; if we will then ordain 
that the legislator shall himself be that 
judge; and if we will place the execu- 
tive power in the same hands, we may 
readily simplify government. We may 
easily bring it to the simplest of all 
possible forms, a pure despotism. But 
a separation of departments, so far as 
practicable, and the preservation of 
clear lines of division between them, is 
the fundamental idea in the creation of 
all our constitutions ; and, doubtless, the 
continuance of regulated liberty depends 
on maintaining these boundaries. 

In the progress. Sir, of the govern- 
ments of the United States, we seem 
exposed to two classes of dangers or 
disturbances; one external, the other 
internal. It may happen that collisions 
arise between this government and the 
governments of the States. That case 
belongs to the first class. A memorable 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



879 



f 



instance of this kind occurred last year. 
It was my conscientious opinion, on that 
occasion, that the authority claimed by 
an individual State ^ was subversive of 
the just powers of this government, and, 
indeed, incompatible with its existence. 
I gave a hearty co-operation, therefore, 
to measures which the crisis seemed to 
require. We have now before us what 
appears, to my judgment, to be an in- 
stance of the latter kind. A contest 
has arisen between different branches 
of the same government, interrupting 
their harmony, and threatening to dis- 
turb their balance. It is of the highest 
importance, therefore, to examine the 
question carefully, and to decide it 
justly. 

The separation of the powers of gov- 
ernment into three departments, though 
all our constitutions profess to be founded 
on it, has, nevertheless, never been per- 
fectly established in any government of 
the world, and perhaps never can be.| 
The general principle is of inestimable 
value, and the leading lines of distinc- 
tion sufficiently plain; yet there are 
powers of so undecided a character, that 
they do not seem necessarily to range 
themselves under either head. And 
most of our constitutions, too, having 
laid down the general principle, imme- 
diately create exceptions. There do not 
exist, in the general science of govern- 
ment, or the received maxims of po- 
litical law, such precise definitions as 
enable us always to say of a given power 
whether it be legislative, executive, or 
judicial. And this is one reason, 
doubtless, why the Constitution, in con- 
ferring power on all the departments, 
proceeds not by general definition, but 
by specific enumeration. And, again, 
it grants a power in general terms, but 
yet, in the same or some other article or 
section, imposes a limitation or qualifi- 
cation on tlie grant; and the grant and 
the limitation must, of course, be con- 
strued together. I Thus the Constitution 
says that all legislative power, therein 
gi-anted, shall be vested in Congress, 
which Congress shall consist of a Senate 
and House of Representatives; and yet, 

1 South Carolina. 



in another article, it gives to the Presi- A 
dent a qualified negative over all acts of 
Congress. So the Constitution di'clares 
that the judicial power shall be vested 
in one Supreme Court, and sucli inferior 
courts as Congress may establisli. It 
gives, nevertheless, in another provision, 
judicial power to the Senate; and, in 
like manner, though it declares that the 
executive power shall be vested in tlie 
President, using, in the immediate con- 
text, no words of limitation, yet it else- 
where subjects the treaty-making power, 
and the appointing power, to the con- 
currence of the Senate. The irresistible 
inference from these considerations is, 
that the mere nomination of a depart- 
ment, as one of the three great and 
commonly acknowledged departments of 
government, does not confer on that de- 
partment any power at all. Notwith- 
standing the departments are called the 
legislative, the executive, and tiie judi- 
cial, we must yet look into the provisions 
of the Constitution itself, in order to 
learn, first, w'hat powers the Constitu- 
tion regards as legislative, executive, 
and judicial; and, in the next place, 
what portions or quantities of these 
powers are conferred on the respective 
departments; because no one will con- 
tend that all legislative power belongs 
to Congress, all executive power to the 
President, or all judicial power to the 
courts of the United States. 

The first three articles of the Consti- 
tution, as all know, are taken up in 
prescribing the organization, and enu- 
merating the powers, of the three de- 
partments. The first article treats of 
the legislature, and its first section is, 
"All legislative power, herein granted, 
shall be vested in a Congress of tlie 
United States, which shall consist of a 
Senate and House of Representatives." 
The second article treats of the execu- 
tive power, and its first section declares 
that " the executive power shall be 
vested in a President of the United 
States of America." The third article 
treats of the jii<iicial pt)wer, and its 
first section declares that " the judicial 
power of the Unitt-d States shall be 
vested in one Supreme Court, and iu 



880 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



such inferior courts as the Congress 
may, from time to time, ordain and 
establish." 

It is too plain to be doubted, I think. 
Sir, til at these desci-iptions of the per- 
sons or otRcers in whom the executive 
and the judicial powers are to be vested 
no more define the extent of the grant 
of those powers, than the words quoted 
from the first article describe the extent 
of the legislative grant to Congress. All 
these several titles, heads of articles, or 
introductory clauses, with the general 
declarations which they contain, serve 
to designate the departments, and to 
mark the general distribution of powers; 
but ill all the departments, in the execu- 
tive and judicial as well as in the legis- 
lative, it would be unsafe to contend for 
any specific power under such clauses. 

If we look into the State constitu- 
tions, we shall find the line of distinc- 
tion between the departments still less 
perfectly drawn, although the general 
principle of the distinction is laid down 
in most of tliem, and in some of them in 
very positive and emphatic terms. In 
some of these States, notwithstanding 
the principle of distribution is adopted 
and sanctioned, the legislature appoints 
the judges; and in others it appoints 
both the governor and the judges; and 
in others, again, it appoints not only the 
judges, but all other officers. 

The inferences which, I think, follow 
from these views of the subject, are two : 
first, that the denomination of a depart- 
ment does not fix the limits of the pow- 
ei'S conferred on it, nor even their exact 
nature; and, second (which, indeed, fol- 
lows from the first), that in our Amer- 
ican governments, the chief executive 
magistrate does not necessarily, and by 
force of his general character of supreme 
executive, possess the appointing power. 
He may have it, or he may not, accord- 
ing to the particular provisions applica- 
ble to each case in the respective consti- 
tutions. 

The President appears to have taken 
a different view of this subject. He 
seems to regard the appointing power as 
originally and inherently in the execu- 
tive, and as remaining absolute in his 



hands, except so far as the Constitution 
restrains it. This I do not agree to, and 
I shall have occasion hereafter to exam- 
ine the question further. I have in- 
tended thus far only to insist on the high 
and indispensable duty of maintaining 
the division of power as the Constitution 
has marked out that ilicision, and to op- 
pose claims of authority not founded on 
express grants or necessary implication, 
but sustained merely by argument or in- 
ference from names or denominations 
given to departments. 

Mr. President, the resolutions now be- 
fore us declare, that the Protest asserts 
powers as belonging to the President in- 
consistent -with the authority of the two 
houses of Congress, and inconsistent 
with the Constitution; and that the 
Protest itself is a breach of privilege. 
I believe all this to be true. 

The doctrines of the Protest are in- 
consistent with the authority of the two 
houses, because, in my judgment, they 
deny the just extent of the law-making 
power. I take the Protest as it was sent 
to us, without inquiring how far the 
subsequent message has modified or ex- 
plained it. It is singular, indeed, that 
a paper, so long in preparation, so elab- 
orate in composition, and which is put 
forth for so high a purpose as the Pro- 
test avows, should not be able to stand 
an hour's discussion before it became 
evident that it was indispensably neces- 
sary to alter or explain its contents. 
Explained or unexplained, however, the 
paper contains sentiments which justify 
us, as I think, in adopting these resolu- 
tions. 

In the first place, I think the Protest 
a clear breach of privilege. It is a re- 
proof or rebuke of the Senate, in lan- 
guage hardly respectful, for the exercise 
of a power clearly belonging to it as a 
legislative body. It entirely misrepre- 
sents the proceedings of the Senate. I 
find this paragraph in it, among others 
of a similar tone and character: "A 
majority of the Senate, whose interfer- 
ence with the preliminary question has, 
for the best of all reasons, been studi- 
ously excluded, anticipate the action of 
the House of Representatives, assume 



THE TRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



381 



not only the function which belongs ex- 
clusively to that body, but convert them- 
selves into accusers, witnesses, coun- 
sel, and judges, and prejudge the whole 
case; thus presenting the appalling spec- 
tacle, in a free state, of judges going 
through a labored preparation for an im- 
partial hearing and decision, by a previ- 
ous ex parte investigation and sentence 
against the supposed offender." 

Now, Sir, this paragraph, I am bound 
to say, is a total misrepresentation of 
the proceedings of the Senate. A ma- 
jority of the Senate have not anticipated 
the House of Representatives ; they have 
not assumed the functions of that body ; 
they have not converted themselves into 
accusers, witnesses, counsel, or judges; 
they have made no ex parte investiga- 
tion ; they have given no sentence. This 
paragraph is an elaborate perversion of 
the whole design and the whole proceed- 
ings of the Senate. A Protest, sent to 
us by the President, against votes which 
the Senate has an unquestionable right 
to pass, and containing, too, such a mis- 
representation of these votes as this par- 
agraph manifests, is a breach of privilege. 

But there is another breach of priv- 
ilege. The President interferes between 
the members of the Senate and their 
constituents, and charges them with act- 
ing contrary to the will of those constit- 
uents. He says it is his right and duty 
to look to the journals of the Senate to 
ascertain who voted for the resolution of 
the 28th of ^larch, and then to show 
that individual Senators have, by their 
votes on that re?olution, disobeyed the 
instructions or violated the known will 
of the legislatures who appointed them. 
All this he claims as his right and his 
duty. And where does he find any such 
right or any such duty? What right 
has he to send a message to either house 
of Congress telling its members that 
they disobey the will of their constit- 
uents ? Has any English sovereign since 
Cromwell's time dared to send such a 
message to Parliament ? Sir, if he can 
tell us that some of us disobey our con- 
stituents, he can tell us that all do so; 
and if we consent to receive this lan- 
guage from him, there is but one re- 



maining step, and that is, that since we 
thus disobey tlie will of our constituouts, 
he should disperse us and .send us liomc. 
In my opinion, the first step in this 
process is as distinct a breaoli of privi- 
lege as the last. If Cromwell's cxainplo 
shall be followed out, it will not be more 
clear then than it is now that the privi- 
leges of the Senate have been viniatcd. 
There is yet something. Sir, whieli sur- 
passes all this; and that is, that, after 
this direct interference, after pointing 
out those Senators whom he would rep- 
resent as having disobeyed the known 
will of their constituents, he disclaims all 
design of interfering at all! Sir, who 
could be the writer of a message, which, 
in the first place, makes the President 
assert such monstrous pretensions, and, 
in the next line, affront the understand- 
ing of the Senate by disavowing all 
right to do that veiy thing which he is 
doing ? If there be any thing, Sir, in 
this message, more likely than the rest 
of it to move one from his equanimity, 
it is this disclaimer of all design to in- 
terfere with the responsibility of mem- 
bers of the Senate to their constituents, 
after such interference had already been 
made, in the same paper, in the most 
objectionable and offensive form. If it 
were not for the purpose of telling these 
Senators that they disobeyed the will of 
the legislatures of the States they repre- 
sent, for what purpose was it that the 
Protest has pointed out the four Sen- 
ators, and paraded against them the sen- 
timents of their legislatures V There can 
be no other purpo.se. The Protest says, 
indeed, that "these facts belong to the 
history of these proceedings "I To the 
history of what proooodiugs? To any 
proceeding to which tlie i'resident was 
party? To any proceeding to wiiich the 
Senate was party? Have they any thing 
to do with the resolution of the L'Stli of 
March? But it adds, that tiie.se facts 
are important to the just derelopmcnl of the 
principles and interests inmlred in the pro- 
ceedings. All this might be said of any 
other facts. It is mere words. To what 
principles, to what interest's, are tlicso 
facts important? They can be impor- 
tant but in one point of view; and that 



382 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



is as proof, or evidence, that the Sen- 
ators have disobeyed instructions, or 
acted against the known will of their 
constituents in disapproving the Presi- 
dent's conduct. They have not the 
slightest bearing in any other way. 
They do not make the resolution of the 
Senate more or less true, nor its right to 
pass it more or less clear. Sir, these 
proceedings of the legislatures were in- 
troduced into this Protest for the very 
purpose, and no other, of showing that 
members of the Senate have acted con- 
trary to the will of their constituents. 
Every man sees and knows this to have 
been the sole design ; and any other pre- 
tence is a mockery to our understandings. 
And this purpose is, in my opinion, an 
unlawful purpose; it is an unjustifiable 
intervention between us and our constit- 
uents; and is, therefore, a manifest and 
flagrant breach of privilege. 

In the next place, the assertions of the 
Protest are inconsistent with the just 
authority of Congress, because they claim 
for the President a power, independent 
of Congress, to possess the custody and 
control of the public treasures. Let this 
point be accurately examined; and, in 
order to avoid mistake, I will read the 
precise words of the Protest. 

" The custody of the public property, un- 
der such regulations as may be prescribed 
by legislative authority, has always been 
considered an appropriate function of the 
executive department in this and all other 
governments. In accordance with tliis prin- 
ciple, every species of property belonging to 
the United States, (excepting that which is 
in the use of the several co-ordinate depart- 
ments of the government, as means to aid 
them in performing their appropriate func- 
tions,) is in charge of officers appointed 
by the President, whether it be lands, or 
buildings, or mercliandise, or provisions, or 
clothing, or arms and munitions of war. 
The superintendents and keepers of the 
whole are appointed by the President, and 
removable at his will. 

" Public money is but a species of public 
property. It cannot be raised by taxation 
or customs, nor brought into the treasury 
in any other way except by law ; but when- 
ever or howsoever obtained, its custody al- 
ways has been, and always must be, unless 



the Constitution be changed, intrusted to 
the executive dopartment. No officer can 
be created by Congress, for the purpose of 
taking charge of it, whose appointment 
would not, by the Constitution, at once de- 
volve on the President, and who would not 
be responsible to him for the faithful per- 
formance of his duties." 

And, in anotner place, it declares that 
" Con^iess cannot, therefore, take out of 
the hands of the executive department 
the custody of the public property or 
money, without an assumption of execu- 
tive power, and a subversion of the first 
principles of the Constitution." These, 
Sir, are propositions which cannot re- 
ceive too much attention. They affirm, 
that the custody of the public money 
constitutionally and necessarily belongs 
to the executive; and that, until the 
Constitution is changed, Congress can- 
not take it out of his hands, nor make 
any provision for its custody, except by 
such superintendents and keepers as are 
appointed by the President and remova- 
ble at his will. If these assertions be 
correct, we have, indeed, a singular 
constitution for a republican govern- 
ment; for we give the executive the 
control, the custody, and the posses- 
sion of the public treasury, by origi- 
nal constitutional provision ; and when 
Congress appropriates, it appropriates 
only what is already in the President's 
hands. 

Sir, I hold these propositions to be 
sound in neither branch. I maintain 
that the custody of the public money 
does not necessarily belong to the ex- 
ecutive, under this government; and I 
hold that Congress may so di.^pose of it, 
that it shall be under the superintend- 
ence of keepers not appointed by the 
President, nor removable at his will. I 
think it competent for Congress to de- 
clare, as Congress did declare in the 
bank charter, that the public deposits 
should be made in the bank. When in 
the bank, they were not kept by persons 
appointed by the President, or remova- 
ble at his will. He could not change 
that custody; nor could it be changed 
at all, but according to provisions made 
in the law itself. There was, indeed, a 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



383 



provision in the law authorizing the Sec- 
retary to change the custody- But sup- 
pose there had been no such provision ; 
suppose the contingent 'power had not 
been given to the Secretary; would it 
not have been a lawful enactment"? 
Might not the law have provided that 
the public moneys should remain in the 
bank, until Congress itself should other- 
wise order, leaving no power of rfetnoval 
anywhere else? And if such provision 
had been made, what power, or custody, 
or control, would the President have 
possessed over them? Clearly, none at 
all. The act of iVIay, 1800, directed 
custom-house bonds, in places where the 
bank which was then in existence was 
situated, or in which it had branches, to 
be deposited in the bank or its branches 
for collection, without the reservation 
to the Secretary, or anybody else, of 
any power of removal. Now, Sir, this 
was an unconstitutional law, if the Pro- 
test, in the part now under consideration, 
be correct ; because it placed the public 
money in a custody beyond the control 
of the President, and in the hands of 
keepers not appointed by him, nor re- 
movable at his pleasure. One may 
readily discern. Sir, the process of rea- 
soning by w'hich the author of the Pro- 
test brought himself to the conclusion 
that Congress could not place the public 
moneys beyond the President's control. 
It is all founded on the power of ap- 
pointment and the power of removal. 
These powers, it is supposed, must give 
the President complete control and au- 
thority over those who actually hold the 
money, and therefore must necessarily 
subject its custody, at all times, to his 
own individual will. This is the argu- 
ment. 

It is true, that the appointment of all 
public officers, with some exceptions, is, 
by the Constitution, given to the Presi- 
dent, with the consent of the Senate; 
and as, in most cases, public property 
must be held by some officer, its keepers 
will generally be persons so appointed. 
But this is only the common, not a neces- 
sary consequence, of giving the appoint- 
ing power to the President and Senate. 
Congress may still, if it shall so see fit, 



place the public treasure in the hand of 
no officer appointed by the PresidcMit, or 
removable by him, but in hands quite 
beyond his control. Subject to one 
contingency only, it did this very tiling 
by the charter of the present bank ; 
and it did the same thing absolutely, 
and subject to no contingency, by the 
law of 1800. The Protest, in the first 
place, seizes on the fact that all officers 
must be appointed by the President, or 
on his nomination; it then assumes the 
next step, that all othcers are, and tnust 
be, removable at his pleasure; and then, 
insisting that public money, like oth<T 
public property, must be kept by Kome 
public officer, it thus arrives at the con- 
clusion that it 7nust always be in the 
hands of those who are appointed by the 
President, and who are removable at his 
pleasure. And it is very clear that the 
Protest means to maintain that the tenure 
of office cannot be so regnhitcd by law, as 
that public officers shall not be removable at 
the pleasure of the President. 

The President considers the right of 
removal as a fixed, vested, constitutional 
right, which Congress cannot limit, con- 
trol, or qualify, until the Constitution 
shall be altered. This, Sir, is doctrine 
which I am not prepared to admit. I 
shall not now discuss the question, 
whether the law may not place the 
tenure of office beyond the reach of ex- 
ecutive pleasure; but I wish merely to 
draw the attention of the Senate to the 
fact, that any such power in Congress 
is denied by the principles and by tlui 
words of the Protest. According to that 
paper, we live under a constitution by 
the provisions of which the public treas- 
ures are, necessarily and unavoidably, 
always under executive control; an<i as 
the executive may remove all officers, 
and appoint others, at least tenqiorarily, 
without the concurrence of the .Senate, 
he may hold those treasures, in the 
hands of persons appointi.'d 1>v himself 
alone, in defiance of any law which 
Congress has passed or can pass. It is 
to be seen. Sir, how far such claims of 
power will receive the approbation of the 
country. It is to be .scimi whether a con- 
struction will be readily adopted which 



384 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



thus places the iniblic purse out of the 
guardianship of tlie immediate repre- 
sentatives of the people. 

But, Sir, there is, in this paper, some- 
thing even yet more strange than these 
extraordinary claims of power. There 
is a strong disposition, running through 
the whole Protest, to represent the execu- 
tive department of this government as 
the peculiar protector of the public lib- 
erty, the chief security on which the 
people are to rely against the encroach- 
ment of other branches of the govern- 
ment. Nothing can be more manifest 
than this purpose. To this end, the 
Protest spreads out the President's offi- 
cial oath, reciting all its words in a 
formal quotation; and yet the oath of 
members of Congi'ess is exactly equiva- 
lent. The President is to swear that he 
will '' preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution"; and members of Con- 
gress ai'e to swear that they will ' ' sup- 
port the Constitution." There are more 
words in one oath thar! the other, but 
the sense is precisely the same. Why, 
then, this reference to his official oath, 
and this ostentatious quotation of it? 
Would the writer of the Protest argue 
that the oath itself is any grant of 
power; or that, because the President is 
to "preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution," he is therefore to use 
what means he pleases for such preser- 
vation, protection, and defence, or any 
means except those which the Constitu- 
tion and laws have specifically given 
him? Such an argument would be ab- 
surd; but if the oath be not cited for 
this preposterous purpose, with what de- 
sign is it thus displayed on the face of 
the Protest, unless it be to support the 
general idea that the maintenance of 
the Constitution and the preservation of 
the public liberties are especially con- 
fided to the safe discretion, the sure 
moderation, the paternal guardianship, 
of executive power? The oath of the 
President contains three words, all of 
equal import; that is, that he will pre- 
serve, protect, and defend the Constitu- 
tion. The oath of members of Con- 
gress is expressed in shorter phrase ; it 
is, that they will support the Constitu- 



tion. If there be any difference in the 
meaning of the two oaths, I cannot dis- 
cern it; and yet the Protest solemnly 
and formally argues thiis: "The duty 
of defending, so far as in him lies, the 
integrity of the Constitution, would, in- 
deed, have resulted from the very nature 
of his office ; but by thus expressing it 
in the official oath or affirmation, which, 
in this respect, differs from that of every 
other functionary, the fovinders of our 
republic have attested their sense of its 
importance, and have given to it a pe- 
culiar solemnity and force." 

Sir, I deny the proposition, and I dis- 
pute the proof. I deny that the duty of 
defending the integrity of the Constitu- 
tion is, in any peculiar sense, confided 
to the President; and I deny that the 
words of his oath furnish any argument 
to make good that proposition. Be 
pleased. Sir, to remember against whom 
it is that the President holds it his pe- 
culiar duty to defend the integrity of the 
Constitution. It is not against external 
force; it is not against a foreign foe; no 
such thing; but it is against the represent- 
atives of the people and the representatives 
of the States ! It is against these that the 
founders of our republic have imposed 
on him the duty of defending the integ- 
rity of the Constitution ; a duty, he says, 
of the importance of which they have 
attested their sense, and to which they 
have given peculiar solemnity and force, 
by expressing it in his official oath ! 

Let us pause. Sir, and consider this 
most strange proposition. The Presi- 
dent is the chief executive magisti-ate. 
He is commander-in-chief of the army 
and navy; nominates all persons to 
office; claims a right to remove all at 
will, and to control all, while yet in 
office; dispenses all favors; and wields 
the whole patronage of the government. 
And the proposition is, that the duty of 
defending the integrity of the Consti- 
tution against tire representatives of the 
States and against the representatives of 
the people, results to him from the very na- 
ture of his office ; and that the founders 
of our republic have given to this duty, 
thus confided to him, peculiar solemnity 
and force ! 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



385 



Mr. President, the contest, for ages, 
has been to rescue Liberty from the 
grasp of executive power. Whoever 
has engaged in her sacred cause, from 
the days of the downfall of those great 
aristocracies which had stood between 
the king and the people to the time of 
our own independence, has struggled 
for the accomiilishment of that single 
object. On the long list of the cham- 
pions of human freedom, there is not 
one name dimmed by the reproach of 
advocating the extension of executive 
authority ; on the contrary, the uniform 
and steady purpose of all such cham- 
pions has been to limit and restrain it. 
To this end the spirit of liberty, grow- 
ing more and more enlightened and 
more and more vigorous from age to 
age, has been battering, for centuries, 
against the solid butments of the feudal 
system. To this end, all that could be 
gained from the imprudence, snatched 
from the weakness, or wrung from the 
necessities of crowned heads, has been 
carefully gathered up, secured, and 
hoarded, as the rich treasures, the very 
jewels of liberty. To this end, popular 
and representative right has kej^t up its 
■warfare against prerogative, with va- 
rious success; sometimes writing the 
history of a whole age in blood, some- 
times witnessing the martyrdom of Sid- 
neys and Russells, often baffled and 
repulsed, but still gaining, on the whole, 
and holding what it gained with a grasp 
which nothing but the complete extinc- 
tion of its own being could compel it to 
relinquish. At length, the great con- 
quest over executive power, in the lead- 
ing western states of Europe, has been 
accomplished. The feudal system, like 
other stupendous fabrics of past ages, is 
known only by the rubbish which it has 
left behind it. Crowned heads have 
been compelled to submit to the re- 
straints of law, and the peoi'I.e, with 
that intelligence and that spirit which 
make their voice resistless, have been 
able to say to prerogative, " Thus far 
shalt thou come, and no farther." I 
need hardly say. Sir, that into the full 
enjoyment of all which Europe has 
reached only through such slow and 



painful steps we sprang at once, by the 
Declaration of Independence, and by 
the establishment of free representative 
governments ; goverimients borrowing 
more or less from the models of other 
free states, but strengthened, secured, 
improved in their symmetry, and deep- 
ened in their foundation, by those great 
men of our own country whose names 
will be as familiar to future times as 
if they were written on the arch of the 
sky. 

Through all this history of the con- 
test for liberty, executive power has 
been regarded as a lion whicli must be 
caged. So far from being the object of 
enlightened popular trust, so far from 
being considered the natural protector 
of popular right, it has been dreaded, 
uniformly, always dreaded, as the great 
source of its danger. 

And now. Sir, who is he, so ignorant 
of the history of liberty, at home and 
abroad; who is he, yet dwelling in his 
contemplations among the principles 
and dogmas of the Middle Ages; who is 
he, from whose bosom all original infu- 
sion of American spirit has become so 
entirely evaporated and exhaled, that 
he shall put into the mouth of the 
President of the United States the doc- 
trine that the defence of liberty nalu- 
rally results to executive power, and ia 
its peculiar duty? Wlio is he, that, 
generous and confiding towards power 
where it is most dangerous, and jealous 
only of those who can restrain it, — who 
is he, that, reversing the order of the 
state, and upheaving the base, would 
poise the pyramid of the political sys- 
tem upon its apex? "Who is he, that, 
overlooking with contempt the guar- 
dianship of the representatives of the 
people, and with equal contempt the 
higher guardianship of the people them- 
selves, — who is he that declares to u.-^, 
through the President's lips, tluit the 
security for freedom rests in executive 
authority? Who is ho that belies the 
blood and libels the fame of his own 
ancestors, by declaring that (hei/, with 
solemnity of form, and force of manner, 
have invoked the executive jiower to 
come to the protection of lil)erty? Who 



25 



386 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



is he that thus charges them with the 
insanity, or the recklessness, of putting 
the Iamb beneath the lion's paw? No, 
Sir. No, Sir. Our security is in our 
watchfulness of executive power. It 
was the constitution of this department 
which was infinitely the most difficult 
part in the great work of creating our 
present government. To give to the 
executive department such power as 
should make it useful, and yet not such 
as should render it dangerous ; to make 
it efficient, independent, and strong, 
and yet to prevent it from sweeping 
away every thing by its union of mili- 
tary and civil authority, by the influ- 
ence of patronage, and office, and favor, 
— this, indeed, was difficult. They 
who had the work to do saw the diffi- 
culty, and we see it; and if we would 
maintain our system, we shall act 
wisely to that end, by preserving every 
restraint and every guard which the 
Constitution has provided. And when 
we, and those who come after us, have 
done all that we can do, and all that 
they can do, it will be well for us and 
for them, if some popular executive, by 
the power of patronage and party, and 
the power, too, of that very popular- 
ity, shall not hereafter prove an over- 
match for all other branches of the gov- 
ernment. 

I do not wish. Sir, to impair the 
power of the President, as it stands 
written down in the Constitution, and 
as great and good men have hitherto 
exercised it. In this, as in other re- 
spects, I am for the Constitution as it is. 
But I will not acquiesce in the reversal 
of all just ideas of government; I will 
not degrade the character of popular 
representation; I will not blindly con- 
fide, where all experience admonishes 
me to be jealous ; I will not trust execu- 
tive power, vested in the hands of a 
single magistrate, to be the guardian of 
liberty. 

Having claimed for the executive the 
especial guardianship of the Constitu- 
tion, the Protest proceeds to present a 
summary view of the powers which are 
supposed to be conferred on the execu- 
tive by that instrument. And it is to 



this part of the message, Sir, that I 
would, more than to all others, call the 
particular attention of the Senate. I 
confess that it was only upon careful re- 
perusal of the paper that I perceived the 
extent to which its assertions of power 
reach. I do not speak now of the Pres- 
ident's claims of power as opposed to 
legislative authority, but of his opinions 
as to his own authority, duty, and re- 
sf)onsibility, as connected with all other 
officers under the government. He is 
of opinion that the whole executive 
power is vested in him, and that he is 
responsible for its entire exercise; that 
among the duties imposed on him is 
that of "taking care that the laws be 
faithfully executed " ; and that, " being 
thus made responsible for the entire ac- 
tion of the executive department, it is 
but reasonable that the power of ap- 
pointing, overseeing, and controlling 
those who execute the laws, a power in 
its nature executive, should remain in 
his hands. It is, therefore, not only 
his right, but the Constitution makes it 
his duty, to ' nominate, and, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
ate, appoint,' all ' officers of the United 
States whose appointments are not in 
the Constitution otherwise provided for,' 
with a proviso that the appointment of 
inferior officers may be vested in the 
President alone, in the courts of justice, 
or in the heads of departments." 

The first proposition, then, which the 
Protest asserts, in regard to the Presi- 
dent's powers as executive magistrate, 
is, that, the general duty being imposed 
on him by the Constitution of taking 
care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
cuted, he thereby becomes himself respon- 
sible for the conduct of every person em- 
ployed in the government ; " for the entire 
action," as the paper expresses it, "of 
the executive department." This, Sir, 
is very dangerous logic. I reject the in- 
ference altogether. No such responsibil- 
ity, nor any thing like it, follows from 
the general provision of the Constitution, 
making it his duty to see the laws exe- 
cuted. If it did, we should have, in 
fact, but one officer in the whole govern- 
ment. The President would be every- 



THE TRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



887 



body. And the Protest assumes to the 
President this whole responsibility for 
every other officer, for the very i>ur]iose 
of making the President everybody, of 
annihilating every thing like indepen- 
dence, responsibility, or c/ki racier, in 
all other public agents. The whole re- 
sponsibility is assumed, in order that it 
may be more plausibly argued that all 
officers of government are not agents of 
the law, but the President's agents, and 
therefoi'e responsible to him alone. If 
he be responsible for the conduct of all 
officers, and they be responsible to him 
only, then it may be maintained that 
such officers are but his own agents, his 
substitutes, his deputies. The first 
thing to be done, therefore, is to as- 
sume the responsibility for all ; and this 
you will perceive, Sir, is done, in the 
fullest manner, in the passages which I 
have read. Having thus assumed for 
the President the entire responsibility 
of the whole government, the Protest 
advances boldly to its conclusion, and 
claims, at once, absolute power over all 
individuals in office, as being merely 
the President's agents. This is the 
language: " The whole executive power 
being vested in the President, who is 
responsible for its exercise, it is a neces- 
sary consequence that he should have 
a right to employ agents of his own 
choice to aid him in the performance of 
his duties, and to discharge them when 
he is no longer willing to be responsible 
for their acts." 

Tliis, Sir, completes the work. This 
handsomely rounds off the whole exec- 
utive system of executive autliority. 
First, the President has the whole 
responsibility; and then, being thus 
responsible for all, he has, and ought 
to liave, the whole power. We have 
heard of political unita, and our Amer- 
ican executive, as here represented, is 
indeed a unit. We have a charmingly 
simple government! Instead of many 
officers, in diffei-ent departments, each 
having appropriate duties, and each re- 
sponsible for his own duties, we are 
so fortunate as to have to deal with but 
one officer. The President carries on 
the government; all the rest are but 



sub-contractors. Sir, whatever uame 
we give him, we have but onk kxkcu- 
TiVK OKFICKU. A Prian'us sits in the 
centre of our system, and w itii his hun- 
dred hands touches every thing, moves 
every thing, controls every tiling. I 
a.sk, Sir, Is this republicanism? Ls 
this a government of laws? Is this 
legal responsibility? 

According to the Pi'otest, the very 
duties which every olHcer under tlie 
government performs are the duties of 
the President himself. It says tluit the 
President has a right to employ tKjcnts 
of his own choice, to aid iiim in the per- 
formance of ms duties. 

Mr. President, if these doctrines be 
true, it is idle for us any longer to talk 
about any such thing as a government 
of laws. We have no government of 
laws, not even the semblance or shadow 
of it; we have no legal responsibility. 
We have an executive, consisting of one 
person, wielding all official jaiwer, and 
which is, to every effectual purpose, 
completely irrespomiihie. The President 
declares that he is " responsible for the 
entire action of the executive depart- 
ment." Responsible? What does lie, 
mean by being "responsible"? Does 
he mean legal responsibility? Certainly 
not. No such thing. Legal responsi- 
bility signifies liability to i>iiuisliment 
for misconduct or maleadministration. 
But the Protest does not mean that tlie 
President is liable to be impeached and 
punished if a secretary of slate should 
commit treason, if a collector of tlie cu."*- 
toms should be guilty of bribery, or if 
a treasurer should embezzle the jiublic 
money. It does not mean, and cannot 
mean, that he should be answerable for 
any such crime or such delimiuency. 
What then, is its notion of that re- 
sponsihilili/ which it .saya tiie President 
is under for all officers, and wliieli au- 
thorizes him to consider all nfReers as 
his own personal agents V Sir, it is 
merely responsibility to public opin- 
ion. It is a liability to be blamed; it 
is the chance of becoming unpopu- 
lar, the danger of losing a re-election. 
Nothing else is meant in the world 
It is the hazard of failing in any at- 



888 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



tempt or enterprise of ambition. This 
is all the responsibility to which the 
doctrines of the Protest hold the Presi- 
dent subject. 

It is precisely the responsibility under 
which Cromwell acted when he dis- 
persed Parliament, telling its members, 
not in so many words, indeed, that they 
disobeyed the will of their constituents, 
but telling them that the people were 
sick of them, and that he drove them 
out " for the glory of God and the good 
of the nation." It is precisely the 
responsibility upon which Bonaparte 
broke up the popular assembly of 
France. I do not mean. Sir, certainly, 
by these illustrations, to insinuate de- 
signs of violent usurpation against the 
President; far from it; but I do mean 
to maintain, that such responsibility as 
that with which the Protest clothes him 
is no legal responsibility, no consti- 
tutional responsibility, no republican 
responsibility, but a mere liability to 
loss of office, loss of character, and loss 
of fame, if he shall choose to violate 
the laws and overturn the liberties of 
the country. It is such a responsibility 
as leaves every thing in his discretion 
and his pleasure. 

Sir, it exceeds human belief that any 
man should put sentiments such as this 
paper contains into a public communi- 
cation from the President to the Senate. 
They are sentiments which give us all 
one master. The Protest asserts an 
absolute right to remove all persons 
from office at pleasure; and for what 
reason? Because they are incompetent V 
Because they are incapable? Because 
they are remiss, negligent, or inatten- 
tive? No, Sir; these are not the rea- 
sons. But he may discharge them, one 
and all, simply because "he is no 
longer willing to be responsible for 
their acts"! It insists on an absolute 
right in the President to direct and con- 
trol every act of every officer of the 
government, except the judges. It as- 
serts this right of direct control over 
and over again. The President may go 
into the treasury, among the auditors 
a,nd comptrollers, and direct them how 
to settle every man's account; what 



abatements to make from one, what 
additions to another. lie may go into 
the custom-house, among collectors and 
appraisers, and may control estimates, 
reductions, and appraisements. It is 
true that these officers are sworn to dis- 
charge the duties of their respective 
offices honestly and fairly, according to 
their own best abilities; it is true, that 
many of them are liable to indictment 
for official misconduct, and others re- 
sponsible, in suits of individuals, for 
damages and penalties, if such official 
misconduct be proved; but notwith- 
standing all this, the Protest avers that i 
all these officers are but the President''s 
agents ; that they are but aiding him in 
the discharge of his duties; that he is 
responsible for their conduct, and that 
they are removable at his will and 
pleasure. And it is under this view 
of his own authority that the President 
calls the Secretaries his Secretaries, not 
once only, but repeatedly. After half 
a century's administration of this gov- 
ernment. Sir; — after we have endeav- 
ored, by statute upon statute, and by 
provision following provision, to define 
and limit official authority; to assign 
particular duties to particular public 
servants; to define those duties; to 
create penalties for their violation; to 
adjust accurately the responsibility of 
each agent with his own powers and his 
own duties; to establish the prevalence 
of equal rule; to make the law, as far 
as possible, every thing, and individual 
will, as far as possible, nothing; — after 
all this, the astounding assertion rings 
in our ears, that, throughout the whole 
range of official agency, in its smallest 
ramifications as well as in its larger 
masses, there is but oxe responsi- 
bility, OXE DISCRETION, ONE WILL ! 
True indeed is it. Sir, if these senti- 
ments be maintained, — true indeed is 
it that a President of the United States 
may well repeat from Napoleon what 
he repeated from Louis the Fourteenth, 
"I am the state"! 

The argument by which the writer of 
the Protest endeavors to establish the 
President's claim to this vast mass of 
accumulated authority, is founded on 



THE TRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



S89 



the provision of the Constitution that 
the executive power shall be vested in 
tlie President. No doubt tlie executive 
power is vested in the President ; but 
what and how much executive power, 
and luiw limited ? To this question I 
should answer, " Look to the Constitu- 
tion, and see ; examine the particulars 
of the grant, and learn what that exec- 
utive power is which is given to the 
President, either by express words or 
by necessary implication." But so the 
writer of this Protest does not reason, 
lie takes these words of the Constitu- 
tion as being, of themselves, a general 
original grant of all executive power to 
the Pi-esident, subject only to such ex- 
press limitations as the Constitution 
prescribes. This is clearly the writer's 
view of the subject, unless, indeed, he 
goes behind the Constitution altogether, 
as some expressions would intimate, to 
search elsewhere for sources of execu- 
tive power. Thus, the Protest says 
that it is not only the right of the Presi- 
dent, but that the Constitution makes 
it his duly, to appoint persons to office; 
as if the right existed before the Consti- 
tution had created the duty. It speaks, 
too, of the power of removal, not as a 
power granted by the Constitution, but 
expressly as "an original executive 
power, left unchecked by the Constitu- 
tion." How original? Coming from 
■what source higher than the Constitu- 
tion? I sliould be glad to know how 
the President gets possession of any 
power by a title earlier, or more origi- 
nal, tiian the grant of the Constitution ; 
or what is meant by an original power, 
■which the President possesses, and 
■which the Constitution has left un- 
checked in his hands. The truth is. 
Sir, most assuredly, that the writer of 
the Protest, in these passages, was 
reasoning upon tlie British constitution, 
and not upon the Constitution of the 
United States. Indeed, he professes to 
found himself on authority drawn from 
the constitution of England. I will 
read, Sir, the whole passage. It is 
this : — 

"In strict accordance with tliis i)rinciplc, 
the power of removal, which, like that of 



appointment, is an original executive power, 
is left unchecked by the Constitution in re- 
lation to all executive ofKcers, for whoso 
conduct the President is responsible ; while 
it is taken from liim in relation to judicial 
officers, for whose acts he is not responsi- 
ble. In the government from which many of 
the fundamental principles of our system are 
derived, the head (f the executive dejMirtment 
originally had power to appoint and remove at 
will all oflicers, executive and judicial. It 
was to take the judges out of this general 
power of removal, and thus make them 
independent of the executive, that the ten- 
ure of their offices was changed to good 
behavior. Nor is it conceivable why they 
are placed, in our Constitution, upon a 
tenure different from that of all other 
officers appointed by the executive, unless 
it be for the same purpose." 

Mr. President, I do most solemnly 
protest (if I, too, may be permitted to 
make a protest) against this mode of 
reasoning. The analogy between the 
British constitution and ours, in this 
respect, is not close enough to guide us 
safely; it can only mislead us. It has 
entirely misled the writer of the Pro- 
test. The President is made to argue, 
upon this subject, as if he had some 
right anterior to the Constitution, which 
right is by that instrument checked, in 
some respects, and in other respects is 
left unchecked, but which, nevertheless, 
still derives its being from another 
source; just as the British king had, 
in the early ages of the monarchy, an 
uncontrolled right of appointing and 
removing all officers at pleasure, but 
which right, so far as it respects the 
judges, has since been checked and con- 
trolled bv act of Parliament; the right 
being original and inherent, the check 
only imposed by law. Sir, T distrust 
altogether British precedents, author- 
ities, and analogies, on such questions 
as this. We are not intpiiring how 
far our Constitution has imposed clu^cks 
on a pre-existing authority. We are 
inquiring what extent of power that 
Constitution has granted. The grant of 
power, the whole source of power, as 
well as the restrictions and limitations 
which are imposed on it, is made in and 
by the Constitution. It has no other 



390 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



origin. And it is this, Sir, -which dis- 
tinguishes our system so very widely 
and materially from the systems of 
Europe. Our governments are limited 
governments; limited in their origin, 
in their very creation ; limited, because 
none but specific powers were ever 
granted, either to any department of 
government, or to the whole: theirs are 
limited, whenever limited at all, by rea- 
son of restraints imposed at different 
times on governments originally un- 
limited and despotic. Our American 
questions, therefore, must be discussed, 
reasoned on, decided, and settled, on 
the appropriate principles of our own 
constitutions, and not by inapplicable 
precedents and loose analogies drawn 
from foreign states. 

Mr. President, in one of the French 
comedies, as you know, in which the 
dulness and prolixity of legal argument 
is intended to be severely satirized, 
while the advocate is tediously groping 
among ancient lore having nothing to 
do with his case, the judge grows impa- 
tient, and at last cries out to him to 
come dorm to the flood ! I really wish. 
Sir, that the writer of this Protest, since 
he was discussing matters of the highest 
importance to us as Americans, and 
which arise out of our own peculiar 
Constitution, had kept himself, not only 
on this side the genei'al deluge, but also 
on this side the Atlantic. I desire that 
the broad waves of that wide sea should 
continue to roll between us and the in- 
fluence of those foreign principles and 
foreign precedents which he so eagerly 
adopts. 

In asserting power for an American 
President, I prefer that he should at- 
tempt to maintain his assertions on 
American reasons. I know not, Sir, 
who the writer was (I wish I did) ; but 
whoever he was, it is manifest that he 
argues this part of his case, throughout, 
on the principles of the constitution of 
England. It is true, that, in England, 
the king is regarded as the original 
fountain of all honor and all office; and 
that anciently, indeed, he possessed all 
political power of every kind. It is 
true that this mass of authority, in the 



progress of that government, has been 
diminished, restrained, and controlled, 
by charters, by immunities, by grants, 
and by various modifications, which the 
friends of liberty have, at different pe- 
riods, been able to obtain or to impose. 
All liberty, as we know, all popular 
privileges, as indeed the word itself im- 
ports, were formerly considered as favors 
and concessions from the monarch. But 
whenever and wherever civil freedom 
could get a foothold, and could maintain 
itself, these favors were turned into 
rights. Before and dm-ing the reigns 
of the princes of the Stuart family, they 
were acknowledged only as favors or 
privileges graciously allowed, although, 
even then, whenever opportunity of- 
fered, as in the instance to which I 
alluded just now, they were contended 
for as rights ; and by the Revolution of 
1688 they were acknowledged as the 
rights of Englishmen, by the prince 
who then ascended the throne, and as 
the condition on which he was allowed 
to sit upon it. But with us there never 
was a time when we acknowledged 
original, unrestrained, sovereign power 
over us. Our constitutions are not 
made to limit and restrain pre-existing 
authority. They are the instruments by 
which the people confer power on their 
own servants. If I may use a legal 
phrase, the people are grantors, not 
grantees. They give to the government, 
and to each branch of it, all the power 
it possesses, or can possess; and what is 
not given they retain. In England, be- 
fore her revolution, and in the rest of 
Europe since, if we would know the ex- 
tent of liberty or popular right, we must 
go to grants, to charters, to allowances, 
and indulgences. But with us, we go 
to grants and to constitutions to learn 
the extent of the powers of government. 
No political power is more original than 
the Constitution; none is possessed 
which is not there granted; and the 
grant, and the limitations in the grant, 
are in the same instrument. 

The powers, therefore, belonging to 
any branch of our government, are to 
be construed and settled, not by remote 
analogies drawn from other govern- 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



391 



ments, but from the words of the grant 
itself, in their phiin sense and necessary 
import, and accortling to an interpreta- 
tion consistent with our own history and 
the spirit of our own institutions. I 
will never agree that a President of the 
United States holds the whole undivided 
power of office in his owu hands, upon 
the theory that he is responsible for tlie 
entire action of the whole body of those 
engaged in carrying on the government 
and executing the laws. Such a respon- 
sibility is purely ideal, delusive, and 
vain. There is, there can be, no sub- 
stantial responsibility, any furtlier than 
every individual is answerable, not 
merely in his reputation, not merely in 
the opinion of mankind, but to the law, 
for the faitlif ul discharge of his own ap- 
propriate duties. Again and again we 
hear it said that the President is respon- 
sible to the American people ! that he is 
responsible to the bar of public opinion ! 
For whatever he does, he assumes ac- 
countability to the American people! 
For whatever he omits, he expects to be 
brought to the high bar of public opin- 
ion ! And this is thought enough for a 
limited, restrained, republican govern- 
ment! an undefined, undefinable, ideal 
responsibility to the public judgment! 

Sir, if all this mean any thing, if it be 
not empty sound, it means no less than 
that the President may do any thing and 
every thing which he may expect to be 
tolerated in doing. He may go just so 
far as he thinks it safe to go; and Crom- 
well and Bonaparte went no farther. I 
ask again. Sir, is this legal responsi- 
bility? Is this the true nature of a gov- 
ernment with written laws and limited 
powers? And allow me. Sir, to ask, 
too, if an executive magistrate, while 
professing to act under the Constitution, 
is restrained only by this responsibility 
to public opinion, what prevents him, 
on the same responsibility, from propos- 
ing a change in that Constitution? Why 
may he not say, " I am about to intro- 
duce new forms, new principles, and a 
new spirit; I am about to try a political 
experiment on a great scale ; and when 
I get through with it, I shall be respon- 
sible to the American people, I shall be 



answerable to the bar of public opin- 
ion "? 

Connected, Sir, with the idea of this 
airy and unreal responsibility to the 
public is another sentiment, which of 
late we hear freipiently expressed; and 
that is, that the President is (he direct rep- 
resentative of the American people. This 
is declared in the Protest in so many 
words. " The President," it says, " is 
the direct representative of the American 
people.''^ Now, Sir, this is not the lan- 
guage of the Constitution. The Con- 
stitution nowhere calls him the repre- 
sentative of the American people; still 
less, their direct representative. It could 
not do so with the least propriety. He 
is not chosen directly by the people, but 
by a body of electors, some of whom are 
chosen by the people, and some of whom 
are appointed by the State legislatures. 
Where, then, is the authority for saying 
that the President is the direct represent- 
ative of the people ? The Constitution 
calls the members of the other house 
Representatives, and declares that they 
shall be chosen by the people ; and there 
are no other direct or immediate repre- 
sentatives of the people in this govern- 
ment. The Constitution denominates 
the President simply the President of 
the United States; it points out the 
complex mode of electing him, defines 
his powers and duties, and imposes lim- 
its and restraints on his authority. With 
these powers and duties, and under these 
restraints, he becomes, when chosen, 
President of the United States. That 
is his character, and the denomination 
of his office. How is it, then, that, on 
this official character, thus cautiously 
created, limited, and defined, he is to 
engraft another and a very imposing 
character, namely, the character of the di- 
rect representative of the American people ? 
I hold this. Sir, to be mere assumption, 
and dangerous assumption. If he is 
the representative of all the American 
people, he is the only representative 
which they all have. Nobody else pre- 
sumes to represent all the people. And 
if he may be allowed to consider him- 
self as the soi.K kepkeskntativk ok 
ALL THE Amekicax I'Eoi'LE, and is to 



392 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



act under no other responsibility than 
such as I have already described, then I 
say, Sir, that the government (I will not 
say the people) has already a master. 
I deny the sentiment, therefore, and I 
protest against the language; neither 
the sentiment nor the language is to be 
found in the Constitution of the coun- 
try ; and whoever is not satisfied to de- 
scribe the powers of the President in 
the language of the Constitution may 
be justly suspected of being as little 
satisfied with the powers themselves. 
The President is President. His office 
and his name of office are known, and 
both are fixed and described by law. 
Being commander of the army and 
navy, holding the power of nominating 
to office and removing from office, and 
being by these powers the fountain of 
all patronage and all favor, what does 
he not become if he be allowed to super- 
add to all this the character of single 
representative of the American people? 
Sir, he becomes what America has not 
been accustomed to see, what this Con- 
stitution has never created, and what I 
cannot contemplate but with profound 
alarm. He who may call himself the 
single representative of a nation may 
speak in the name of the nation, may 
undertake to wield the power of the 
nation; and who shall gainsay him in 
whatsoever he chooses to pronounce to 
be the nation's will? 
■ I will now. Sir, ask leave to recapitu- 
late the general doctrines of this Protest, 
and to present them together. They 
are, — 

That neither branch of the legislature 
can take up, or consider, for the purpose 
of censure, any official act of the Presi- 
dent, without some view to legislation 
or impeachment; 

That not only the passage, but the 
discussion, of the resohition of the Sen- 
ate of the 28th of March, was unauthor- 
ized by the Constitution, and repugnant 
to its provisions ; 

That the custody of the public treas- 
ury always must be intrusted to the 
executive; that Congress cannot take it 
out of his hands, nor place it anywhere 
except under such superintendents and 



keepers as are appointed by him, re- 
sponsible to him, and removable at his 
will; 

That the whole executive power is in 
the President, and that therefore the 
duty of defending the integrity of the 
Constitution results to him from the vei-y 
nature of his office; and that the found- 
ers of our republic have attested their 
sense of the importance of this duty, 
and, by expressing it in his official oath, 
have given to it peculiar solemnity and 
force ; 

That, as he is to take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed, he is there- 
by made responsible for the entire action 
of the executive department, with the 
power of appointing, overseeing, and 
controlling those who execute the laws ; 

That the power of removal from office, 
like that of appointment, is an original 
executive power, and is left in his hands 
unchecked by the Constitution, except in 
the case of judges; that, being respon- 
sible for the exercise of the whole exec- 
utive power, he has a right to employ 
agents of his own choice to assist him in 
the performance of his duties, and to 
discharge them when he is no longer 
willing to be responsible for their acts; 

That the Secretaries are his Secre- 
taries, and all persons appointed to of- 
fices created by law, except the judges, 
his agents, responsible to him, and re- 
movable at his pleasure; 

And, finally, that he is the direct rep- 
resentatice of the American people. 

These, Sir, are some of the leading 
propositions contained in the Protest; 
and if they be true, then the government 
under which we live is an elective mon- 
archy. It is not yet absolute ; there are 
yet some checks and limitations in the 
Constitution and laws; but, in its es- 
sential and prevailing character, it is an 
elective monarchy. 

Mr. President, I have spoken freely 
of this Protest, and of the doctrines 
which it advances; but I have spoken 
deliberately. On these high questions 
of constitutional law, respect for my 
own character, as well as a solemn and 
profound sense of duty, restrains me 
from giving utterance to a single senti- 



THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 



393 



merit which does not flow from entire 
conviction. I feel tliat I am not wrong. 
I feel that an inborn and inbred love of 
constitutional liberty, and some study 
of our political institutions, have not on 
this occasion misled me. But I have 
desired to say nothing that should give 
pain to the chief magistrate personally. 
I have not sought to fix arrows in his 
breast; but I believe him mistaken, al- 
together mistaken, in the sentiments 
which he has expressed; and I must 
concur with others in placing on tlie 
records of the Senate my disapprobation 
of those sentiments. On a vote which 
is to remain so long as any proceeding of 
the Senate shall last, and on a question 
which can never cease to be important 
while the Constitution of the country 
endures, I have desii-ed to make public 
my reasons. They will now be known, 
and I submit them to the judgment of 
the present and of after times. Sir, the 
occasion is full of interest. It cannot 



pass off without leaving strong impres- 
sions on the character of public men. 
A collision has taken place which I 
could have most anxiously wished to 
avoid; but it was not to be shunned. 
We have not sought this controversy ; it 
has met us, and been forced upon us. 
In my judgment, the law has been dis- 
regarded, and the Constitution trans- 
gressed ; the fortress of liberty has been 
assaulted, and circumstances have placed 
the Senate in the breach; and, although 
we may perish in it, I know we shall 
not fly from it. But I am fearless of 
consequences. We shall hold on, Sir, 
and hold out, till the people themselves 
come to its defence. We shall raise the 
alai'm, and maintain the post, till they 
whose right it is shall decide whether 
the Senate be a faction, wantonly re- 
sisting lawful power, or whether it be 
opposing, with firmness and patriotism, 
violations of liberty and inroads upon 
the Constitution. 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 16th OF FEB- 
RUARY, 1835, ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO 
REPEAL THE FIRST AND SECOND SECTIONS OF THE ACT TO LIMIT THE 
TERM OF SERVICE OF CERTAIN OFFICERS THEREIN NAMED." 



Mr. President, — The professed ob- 
ject of this bill is the reduction of execu- 
tive influence and patronage. I concur 
in the propriety of that object. Having 
no wish to diminish or to control, in the 
slightest degree, the constitutional and 
legal authority of the presidential office, 
I yet think that the indirect and rapidly 
increasing influence which it possesses, 
and which arises from the power of 
bestowing office and of taking it away 
again at pleasure, and from the manner 
in which that power seems now to be 
systematically exercised, is productive 
of serious evils. 

The extent of the patronage spring- 
ing from this power of appointment and 
removal is so great, that it brings a dan- 
gerous mass of private and personal in- 
terest into operation in all great public 
elections and public questions. This is 
a mischief which has reached, already, 
an alarming height. The principle of 
republican governments, we are taught, 
is public virtue; and whatever tends 
either to corrupt this principle, to de- 
base it, or to weaken its force, tends, in 
the same degree, to the final overthrow 
of such governments. Our representa- 
tive systems suppose, that, in exercising 
the high right of suffrage, the greatest 
of all political rights, and in forming 
opinions on great public measures, men 
will act conscientiously, under the influ- 
ence of public principle and patriotic 
duty ; and that, in supporting or oppos- 



ing men or measures, there will be a 
general prevalence of honest, intelligent 
judgment and manly independence. 
These presumptions lie at the founda- 
tion of all hope of maintaining gov- 
ernments entirely popular. Whenever 
personal, individual, or selfish motives 
influence the conduct of individuals on 
public questions, they affect the safety 
of the whole system. When these mo- 
tives run deep and wide, and come in 
serious conflict with higher, purer, and 
more patriotic purposes, they greatly 
endanger that system; and all will ad- 
mit that, if they become general and 
overwhelming, so that all public piin- 
ciple is lost sight of, and every election 
becomes a mei-e scramble for office, the 
system inevitably must fall. Every 
wise man, in and out of government, 
will endeavor, therefore, to promote the 
ascendency of public virtue and public 
principle, and to lestrain as far as prac- 
ticable, in the actual operation of our 
institutions, the influence of selfish and 
private interests. 

I concur with those who think, that, 
looking to the present, and looking also 
to the future, and regarding all the 
probabilities that await us in reference 
to the chaiacter and qualities of those 
who may fill the executive chair, it is 
important to the stability of government 
and the welfare of the people that there 
should be a check to the progiess of 
oflicial influence and patronage. The 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



395 



unlimited power to grant office, and to 
take it away, gives a command over the 
hopes and fears of a vast nniltitude of 
men. It is generally true, that he who 
controls another man's means of living 
controls his will. Where there are fa- 
vors to be granted, there are usually 
enough to solicit for them; and when 
favors once granted may be witlidrawn 
at pleasure, there is ordinarily little 
security for personal independence of 
character. The power of giving office 
thus affects the fears of all who are in, 
and the hopes of all who are out. 
Those who are out endeavor to distin- 
guish tliemselves by active political 
friendship, by warm personal devotion, 
by clamorous support of men in w^hose 
hands is the power of reward; while 
those who are in ordinarily take care 
that others shall not surpass them in 
such qualities or such conduct as are 
most likely to secure favor. They re- 
solve not to be outdone in any of the 
works of partisanship. The conse- 
quence of all this is obvious. A com- 
petition ensues, not of patriotic labors; 
not of rough and severe toils for the 
public good; not of manliness, inde- 
pendence, and public spirit; but of 
complaisance, of indiscriminate support 
of executive measures, of pliant sub- 
serviency and gross adulation. All 
throng and rush together to the altar 
of man-worship; and there they offer 
sacrifices, and pour out libations, till 
the thick fumes of their incense turn 
their own heads, and turn, also, the 
head of him who is the object of their 
idolatry. 

The existence of parties in popular 
governments is not to be avoided; and 
if they are formed on constitutional 
questions, or in regard to great meas- 
ures of public policy, and do not run to 
excessive length, it may be admitted 
that, on the whole, tliey do no great 
harm. But the patronage of office, the 
power of bestowing place and emolu- 
ments, creates parties, not upon any 
principle or any measure, but upon the 
single ground of personal interest. Un- 
der the direct influence of this motive, 
they form round a leader, and they go 



for " the spoils of victoiy." And if the 
party chieftain becomes the national 
chieftain, he is still but too apt to con- 
sider all who have opposed him as ene- 
mies to be punished, and all who have 
supported him as friends to be rewarded. 
Blind devotion to party, and to the head 
of a party, thus takes place of the senti- 
ment of generous patriotism and a high 
and exalted sense of public duty. 

Let it not be said, Sir, that the dan- 
ger from executive patronage cannot be 
great, since the persons who hold office, 
or can hold office, constitute so small a 
portion of the Mhole people. 

In the first place, it is to be remem- 
bered that patronage acts, not only on 
those who actually possess office, but on 
those also who expect it, or hope for it; 
and in the next place, office-holders, by 
their very situation, their public station, 
their connection with the business of 
individuals, their activity, their ability 
to help or to hurt according to their 
pleasure, their acquaintance with public 
affairs, and their zeal and devotion, ex- 
ercise a degree of influence out of all 
proportion to their numbers. 

Sir, we cannot disregard our own ex- 
perience. We cannot shut our eyes to 
what is around us and upon us. No 
candid man can deny that a great, a 
very great change has taken place, 
within a few years, in the practice of 
the executive government, which has 
produced a corresponding change in our 
political condition. No one can deny 
that office, of every kind, is now sought 
with extraordinary avidity, and that the 
condition, well understood to be attached 
to every officer, high or low, is indis- 
criminate support of executive measures 
and implicit obedience to executive will. 
For tiiese reasons, Sir, I am for arrest- 
ing the further progress of this execu- 
tive patronage, if we can arrest it; I am 
for staying the further contagion of this 
plague. 

The bill proposes two measures. One 
is to alter the <luration of certain offices, 
now limited absolutely to four years; so 
that the limitation shall be qualified or 
conditional. If the officer is in default, 
if his accounts are not settled, if he re- 



396 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



tains or misapplies tlie public money, 
information is to be given thereof, and 
thereupon his commission is to cease. 
But if his accounts are all regularly set- 
tled, if he collects and disburses the 
public money faithfully, then he is to 
remain in office, unless, for some other 
cause, the President sees fit to remove 
him. This is the provision of the bill. 
It applies only to certain enumerated 
officers, who may be called accounting 
officers; that is to say, officers who re- 
ceive and disburse the public money. 
Formerly, all these officers held their 
places at the pleasure of the President. 
If he saw no just cause for removing 
them, they continued in their situations, 
no fixed period being assigned for the ex- 
piration of their commissions. But the 
act of 1820 limited the commissions of 
these officers to four years. At the end 
of four years, they were to go out, with- 
out any removal, however well they 
might have conducted themselves, or 
however useful to the public their fur- 
ther continuance in office might be. 
They might be nominated again, or 
might not; but their commissions ex- 
pired. 

Now, Sir, I freely admit that consid- 
erable benefit has arisen from this law. 
I agree that it has, in some instances, 
secured promptitude, diligence, and a 
sense of responsibility. These were 
the benefits whicli those who passed the 
law expected from it ; and these benefits 
have, in some measure, been realized. 
But I think that this change in the ten- 
ure of office, together with some good, 
has brought along a far more than 
equivalent amount of evil. By the 
operation of this law, the President can 
deprive a man of office without taking 
the responsibility of removing him. 
The law itself vacates the office, and 
gives the means of rewarding a friend 
without the exercise of the power of re- 
moval at all. Here is increased power, 
with diminished responsibility. Here 
is a still greater dependence, for the 
means of living, on executive favor, 
and, of course, a new dominion acquired 
over opinion and over conduct. The 
power of removal is, or at least formerly 



was, a suspected and odious power. 
Public opinion would not always toler- 
ate it; and still less frequently did it 
approve it. Something of character, 
something of the respect of the intelli- 
gent and patriotic part of the commu- 
nity, was lost by every instance of its 
unnecessary exercise. This was some 
restraint. But the law of 1820 took it 
all away. It vacated offices periodically, 
by its own operation, and thus added to 
the power of removal, which it left still 
existing in full force, a new and ex- 
traordinary facility for the extension of 
patronage, influence, and favoritism. 

I would ask every member of the Sen- 
ate if he does not perceive, daily, effects 
which may be fairly traced to this cause. 
Does he not see a union of purpose, a 
devotion to power, a co-operation in 
action, among all who hold office, quite 
unknown in the earlier periods of the 
government? Does he not behold, every 
hour, a stronger development of the 
principle of personal attachment, and a 
corresponding diminution of genuine 
and generous public feeling? Was in- 
discriminate support of party measures, 
was unw'avering fealty, was regular suit 
and service, ever before esteemed such 
important and essential parts of official 
duty ? 

Sir, the theory of our institutions is 
plain ; it is, that government is an agency 
created for the good of the people, and 
that every person in office is the agent 
and servant of the people. Offices are 
created, not for the benefit of those who 
are to fill them, but for the public con- 
venience ; and they ought to be no more 
in number, nor should higher salaries 
be attached to them, than the public 
service requires. This is the theory. 
But the difficulty in practice is, to pre- 
vent a direct reversal of all this ; to pre- 
vent public offices from being considered 
as intended for the use and emolument of 
those who can obtain them. There is a 
headlong tendency to this, and it is ne- 
cessary to restrain it by wise and effect- 
ive legislation. There is still another, 
and perhaps a greatly more mischievous 
result, of extensive patronage in the 
hands of a single magistrate, to which I 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



397 



have already incidentally alluded; and 
that is, that men in office have begun to 
think themselves mere agents and ser- 
vants of the appointing power, and not 
agents of the government or the country. 
It is, in an especial manner, important, 
if it be practicable, to apply some cor- 
rective to this kind of feeling and opin- 
ion. It is necessary to bring back 
public officers to the conviction, that 
they belong to the country, and not to 
any administration, nor to anyone man. 
The army is the army of the country; 
the navy is the navy of the country ; nei- 
ther of them is either the mere instru- 
ment of the administration for the time 
being, nor of him who is at the head 
of it. The post-office, the land-office, 
the custom-house, are, in like manner, 
institutions of the country, established 
for the good of the people ; and it may 
well alarm the lovers of free institutions, 
■when all the offices in these several de- 
partments are si^oken of, in high places, 
as being but " spoils of victory," to be 
enjoyed by those who are successful in a 
contest, in which they profess this grasp- 
ing of the spoils to have been the object 
of their efforts. 

This part of the bill, therefore, Sir, 
is a subject for fair comparison. We 
have gained something, doubtless, by 
limiting the commissions of these offi- 
cers to four years. But have we gained 
as much as we have lost? 2\.nd may 
not the good be preserved, and the evil 
still avoided? Is it not enough to say, 
that if, at the end of four years, moneys 
are retained, accomits unsettled, or other 
duties unperformed, the office shall be 
held to be vacated, without any positive 
act of removal? 

For one, I tliink the balance of ad- 
vantage is decidtidly in favor of the 
present bill. I think it will make men 
more dependent on thuir own good con- 
duct, and less dependent on the will of 
others. I believe it will cause them to 
regard their country more, their own 
duty more, and tlie favor of individuals 
less. I think it will contribute to offi- 
cial respectability, to freedom of opin- 
ion, to independence of character; and I 
think it will tend, in no small degree, to 



prevent the mixture of selfish and per- 
sonal motives with the exercise of hi<rh 
political duties. It will promote true 
and genuine republicanism, by causing 
the opinion of the people respecting the 
measures of government, and the men 
in government, to be formed and ex- 
pressed without fear or favor, and with 
a more entire regard to their true and 
real merits or demerits. It will be, so 
far as its effects reach, an auxiliary to 
patriotism and public virtue, in their 
warfare against selfishness and cupidity. 
The second check on executive patron- 
age contained in this bill is of still 
greater importance tlian the first. This 
provision is, that, whenever tlie Presi- 
dent removes any of these officers fiom 
office, he shall state to the Senate tlie 
reasons for such removal. This part of 
the bill has been opposed, both on con- 
stitutional grounds and on grounds of 
expediency. 

The bill, it is to be observed, ex- 
pressly recognizes and admits the actual 
existence of the power of removal. I 
do not mean to deny, and the bill does 
not deny, that, at tlie present moment, 
the President may remove these offi- 
cers at will, because the early decision 
adopted that construction, and the laws 
have since uniformly sanctioned it. 
The law of 1820, intended to be re- 
pealed by this bill, expressly affirms 
the power. I consider it, therefore, a 
settled point; settled by construction, 
settled by precedent, settled by the 
practice of the government, and settled 
by statute. At the same time, after 
considering the question again and 
again within the last six years, I am 
very willing to say, that, in my delib- 
erate judgment, the original decision 
was wrong. I cannot but think that 
those who denied the power in 1789 
had the best of the argument; and yet 
I will not say that I know myself so 
thoroughly as to affirm, that tiiis opin- 
ion may not have been produced, in 
some mi'asure, by that abuse of the 
power which has been passing before 
our eyes for several years. It is possi- 
ble that this experience of the evil may 
have affected mv view of the constitu- 



398 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



tional argument. It appears to me, 
liowpver, after thorough and repeated 
and conscientious examination, that an 
erroneous interpretation was given to 
the Constitution, in this respect, by the 
decision of the first Congress; and I 
-will ask leave to state, shortly, the rea- 
sons for that opinion, although there is 
nothing in this bill which proposes to 
disturb that decision. 

The Constitution nowhere says one 
word of the power of removal from 
office, except in the case of conviction 
on impeachment. Wherever the power 
exists, therefore, except in cases of im- 
peachment, it must exist as a construc- 
tive or incidental power. If it exists 
in the President alone, it must exist in 
him because it is attached to something 
else, or included in something else, or 
results from something else, which is 
granted to the President. There is cer- 
tainly no specific grant; it is a power, 
therefore, the existence of which, if 
proved at all, is to be proved by infer- 
ence and argument. In the only in- 
stance in which the Constitution speaks 
of removal from office, as I have already 
said, it speaks of it as the exercise of 
judicial power; that is to say, it speaks 
of it as one part of the judgment of the 
Senate, in cases of conviction on im- 
peachment. No other mention is made, 
in the whole instrument, of any power 
of removal. Whence, then, is the power 
derived to the President? 

It is usually said, by those who main- 
tain its existence in the single hands of 
the President, that the power is derived 
from that clause of the Constitution 
which says, "The executive power 
shall be vested in a President." The 
power of removal, they argue, is, in its 
nature, an executive power; and, as the 
executive power is thus vested in the 
President, the power of removal is neces- 
sarily included. 

It is true, that the Constitution de- 
clares that the executive power shall 
be vested in the President; but the 
first question which then arises is. 
What is executive power? What is the 
degree, and what are the limitations ? Ex- 
ecutive power is not a thing so well 



known, and so accurately defined, as 
that the written constitution of a 
limited government can be supposed 
to have conferred it in the lump. 
What is executive power? What aie 
its boundaries ? What model or exam- 
ple had the f ramers of the Constitution 
in their minds, when they spoke of 
"executive power"? Did they mean 
executive power as known in England, 
or as known in France, or as known in 
Russia? Did they take it as defined by 
IMontesquieu, by Burlamaqui, or by De 
Lolme? All these differ from one an- 
other as to the extent of the executive 
power of government. What, then, was 
intended by "the executive power"? 
Now, Sir, I think it perfectly plain and 
manifest, that, although the framers of 
the Constitution meant to confer execu- 
tive power on the President, yet they 
meant to define and limit that power, 
and to confer no more than they did 
thus define and limit. When they say 
it shall be vested in a President, they 
mean that one magistrate, to be called 
a President, shall hold the executive 
authority; but they mean, further, that 
he shall hold this authority according to 
the grants and limitations of the Con- 
stitution itself. 

They did not intend, certainly, a 
sweeping gift of prerogative. They did 
not intend to grant to the President 
whatever might be construed, or sup- 
posed, or imagined to be executive 
power; and the proof that they meant 
no such thing is, that, immediately 
after using these general words, they 
proceed specifically to enumerate his 
several distinct and particular authori- 
ties; to fix and define them; to give 
the Senate an essential control over the 
exercise of some of them, and to leave 
others uncontrolled. By the executive 
power conferred on the President, the 
Constitution means no more than that 
portion which itself creates, and which 
it qualifies, limits, and circumscribes. 

A general survey of the frame of the 
Constitution will satisfy us of this. 
That instrument goes all along upon 
the idea of dividing the powers of gov- 
ernment, so far as practicable, into 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



399 



three great departments. It describes 
the powers and duties of these depart- 
ments ill an article allotted to each. 
As first in importance and dignity, it 
begins with the legislative department. 
The first article of the Constitution, 
therefore, commences with the declara- 
tion, that "all legislative power hei-ein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of 
the United States, which shall consist 
of a Senate and House of Representa- 
tives." The article goes on to prescribe 
the manner in which Congress is to be 
constituted and organized, and then pro- 
ceeds to enumerate, specifically, the powers 
intended to he granted ; and adds the gen- 
eral clause, conferring such authority 
as may be necessary to carry granted 
powers into effect. Now, Sir, no man 
doubts that this is a limited legislature; 
that it possesses no powers but such as 
are granted by express words or neces- 
sary implication; and that it would be 
quite preposterous to insist that Con- 
gress possesses any particular legislative 
power, merely because it is, in its 
nature, a legislative body, if no grant 
can be found for it in the Constitution 
itself. 

Then comes, Sir, the second article, 
creating an executive power; and it 
declares, that "the executive power 
shall be vested in a President of the 
United States." After providing for 
the mode of choosing him, it immedi- 
ately proceeds to enumerate, specifically, 
the pow'ers which he shall possess and 
exercise, and the duties which he shall 
perform. I consider the language of 
this article, therefore, precisely analo- 
gous to that in which the legislature is 
created; that is to say, I understand the 
Constitution as saying tliat " the execu- 
tive power herein (/ranted shall be vested 
in a President of the United States." 

In like manner, the third article, or 
that which is intended to arrange the 
judicial system, begins by declaring 
that " the judicial power of the United 
States shall be vested in one Supreme 
Court, and in such inferior courts as 
the Congress may, from time to time, 
ordain and establish." But these gen- 
eral words do not show what extent of 



judicial power is vested in the courts of 
the United States. All that is left to 
be done, and is done, in the following 
sections, by express and well-guarded 
provisions. 

I think, therefore. Sir, that very 
great caution is to be used, and the 
ground well considered, before we ad- 
mit that the President derives any dis- 
tinct and specific power from those 
general words which vest the executive 
authority in him. The Constitution 
itself does not rest satisfied with these 
general words. It immediately goes 
into particulars, and carefully enumer- 
ates the several authorities which the 
President shall possess. The very first 
of the enumerated powers is the com- 
mand of the army and navy. This, 
most certainly, is an executive power. 
And why is it particularly set down and 
expressed, if any power was intended to 
be granted under the general words? 
This would pass, if any thing would 
pass, under those words. But enumer- 
ation, specification, particular ization, 
was evidently the design of the framers 
of the Constitution, in this as in other 
parts of it. I do not, therefore, regard 
the declaration that the executive power 
shall be vested in a President as being 
any grant at all; any more than the 
declaration that the legislative power 
shall be vested in Congress constitutes, 
by itself, a grant of such power. In 
the one case, as in the other, I think 
the object was to describe and denomi- 
nate the department, which should hold, 
respectively, the legislative and the ex- 
ecutive authority; very much as we see, 
in some of the State constitutions, that 
the several articles are headed with the 
titles " legislative power," " executive 
power," "judicial power"; and this 
entitling of the articles with the name 
of the power has never been supposed, 
of itself, to confer any authority what- 
ever. It amounts to no more than 
naming the departments. 

If, then, the power of removal be 
admitted to be an executive power, still 
it must be sought for and found among 
the enumerated executive powers, or 
fairly implied from some one or more 



400 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



of them. It cannot be implied from 
the general words. The power of ap- 
pointment was not left to be so implied; 
why, then, should the power of removal 
have been so left? They are both 
closely connected; one is indispensable 
to the other; why, then, was one care- 
fully expressed, defined, and limited, 
and not one word said about the other? 
Sir, I think the whole matter is suffi- 
ciently plain. Nothing is said in the 
Constitution about the power of re- 
moval, because it is not a separate and 
distinct power. It is part of the power 
of appointment, naturally going with it 
or necessarily resulting from it. The 
Constitution or the laws may separate 
these powers, it is true, in a particular 
case, as is done in respect to the judges, 
who, though appointed by the President 
and Senate, cannot be removed at the 
pleasure of either or of both. So a 
statute, in prescribing the tenure of any 
other office, may place the officer beyond 
the reach of the appointing power. But 
where no other tenure is prescribed, and 
officers hold their places at will, that 
will is necessarily the will of the ap- 
pointing power; because the exercise of 
the power of appointment at once dis- 
places such officers. The power of plac- 
ing one man in office necessarily implies 
the power of turning another out. If 
one man be Secretary of State, and an- 
other be appointed, the first goes out by 
the mere force of the appointment of 
the other, without any previous act of 
removal whatever. And this is the 
practice of the government, and has 
been, from the first. In all the re- 
movals which have been made, they 
have generally been effected simply by 
making other appointments. I cannot 
find a case to the contrary. There is 
no such thing as any distinct official act 
of removal. I have looked into the 
practice, and caused inquiries to be 
made in the departments, and I do not 
learn that any such proceeding is known 
as an entry or record of the removal of 
an officer from office; and the President 
could only act, in such cases, by causing 
some proper record or entry to be made, 
as proof of the fact of removal. I am 



aware that there have been some cases 
in which notice has been sent to persons 
in office that their services are, or will 
be, after a given day, dispensed with. 
These are usually cases in which the 
object is, not to inform the incumbent 
that he is removed, but to tell him that 
a successor either is, or by a day named 
W'ill be, appointed. If there be any 
instances in which such notice is given 
without express reference to the ap- 
pointment of a successor, they are few ; 
and even in these, such reference must 
be implied; because in no case is there 
any distinct official act of removal, that 
I can find, unconnected with the act of 
appointment. At any rate, it is the 
usual practice, and has been from the 
first, to consider the appointment as 
producing the removal of the previous 
incumbent. When the President de- 
sires to remove a person from office, he 
sends a message to the Senate nominat- 
ing some other person. The message 
usually runs in this form: " I nominate 
A. B. to be collector of the customs, &c., 
in the place of C. D., removed." If 
the Senate advise and consent to this 
nomination, C. D. is effectually out of 
office, and A. B. is in, in his place. 
The same effect would be produced, if 
the message should say notliing of any 
removal. Suppose A. B. to be Secre- 
tary of State, and the President to send 
us a message, saying merely, " I nomi- 
nate C. I), to be Secretary of State." 
If we confirm this nomination, C. D. 
becomes Secretary of State, and A. B. 
is necessarily removed. 

I have gone into these details and par- 
ticulars. Sir, for the purpose of showing, 
that, not only in the nature. of things, 
but also according to the practice of the 
government, the power of removal is in- 
cident to the power of appointment. It 
belongs to it, is attached to it, forms a 
part of it, or results from it. 

If this be true, the inference is mani- 
fest. If the power of removal, when 
not otherwise regulated by Constitution 
or law, be part and parcel of the power 
of appointment, or a necessary incident 
to it, then whoever holds the power of 
appointment holds also the power of re- 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



401 



moval. But it is the President and the 
Senate, and not the President alone, who 
hold the power of appointment; and 
therefore, according to the true con- 
struction of the Constitution, it should 
be the President and Senate, and not 
the President alone, who hold the power 
of removal. 

The decision of 1789 has been followed 
by a very strange and indefensible anom- 
aly, showing that it does not rest on any 
just principle. The natural connection 
between the appointing power and the 
removing power has, as I have already 
stated, always led the President to bring 
about a removal by the process of a new 
appointment. This is quite efficient for 
his purpose, when the Senate confirms 
the new nomination. One man is tlien 
turned out, and another put in. But 
the Senate sometimes rejects the new 
nomination; and what then becomes of 
the old incumbent? Is he out of office, 
or is he still in? lie has not been turned 
out by any exercise of the power of ap- 
pointment, for no appointment has been 
made. That power has not been exer- 
cised. He has not been removed by any 
distinct and separate act of removal, for 
no such act has been performed, or at- 
tempted. Is he still in, then, or is he 
out? AVhere is he? In this dilemma. 
Sir, those who maintain the power of 
removal as existing in the President 
alone are driven to what seems to me 
very near absurdity. The incumbent 
has not been removed by the appointing 
power, since the appointing power has 
not been exercised. He has not been re- 
moved by any distinct and independent 
act of removal, since no such act has been 
performed. 

They are forced to the necessity, there- 
fore, of contending that the removal has 
been accomplished by the mere nomina- 
tion of a successor; so that the removing 
power is made incident, not to the ap- 
pointing power, but to one part of it; 
that is, to the noniinatinij power. The 
nomination, not having been assented 
to by the Senate, it is clear, has failed, 
as the first step in the process of appoint- 
ment. But though thus rendered null 
and void in its main object, as the first 

26 



process in making an appointment, it is 
held to be good and valid, nevertheless, 
to bring about that which results from an 
appoinlmeiU ; that is, the removal of the 
person actually in office. In other words, 
the nomination produces the consequen- 
ces of an appointment, or some of them, 
though it be itself no appointment, and 
effect no appointment. This, Sir, ap- 
pears to me to be any thing but sound 
reasoning and just construction. 

But this is not all. The President has 
sometimes sent us a nomination to an 
office already filled, and, before we have 
acted upon it, has seen fit to withdraw 
it. What is the effect of such a nomina- 
tion? If a nomination, merely as such, 
turns out the present incumbent, then 
he is out, let what will become after- 
wards of the nomination. But I believe 
the President has acted upon the idea 
that a nomination made, and at any 
time afterwards withdrawn, does not re- 
move the actual incumbent. 

Sir, even this is not the end of the in- 
consistencies into which the prevailing 
doctrine has led. There have been cases 
in which nominations to offices already 
filled have come to the Senate, remained 
here for weeks, or months, the incum- 
bents all the while continuing to dis- 
charge their official duties, and relin- 
quishing their offices only when the 
nominations of their successors have 
been confirmed, and commissions issued 
to them; so that, if a nomination be 
confirmed, the nomination it xe 1/ mukes no 
removal; the removal then waits to be 
brought about by the appointment. But 
if the nomination be rejected, then the 
nomination itself, it is contended, has 
effected the removal. Who can defend 
opinions which lead to such results? 

These reasons. Sir, incline me strongly 
to the opinion, that, upon a just con- 
struction of the Constitution, the power 
of removal is part of, or a necessary re- 
sult from, the power of appointment, 
and, therefore, that it ought to have been 
exercised by the Senate concurrently 
with the President. 

The argument may be strengthened 
by various illustrations. The Constitu- 
tion declares that Congress may vest the 



402 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



appointment of inferior officers in the 
President alone, in the courts of law, or 
in the heads of departments; and Con- 
gress has passed various acts providing 
for appointments, according to this i-eg- 
ulation of the Constitution. Thus the 
Supreme Court, and other courts of the 
United States, have authority to appoint 
their clerks ; heads of departments also 
appoint their own clerks, according to 
statute provisions; and it has never been 
doubted that these courts, and these heads 
of departments, may remove their clerks 
at pleasure, although nothing is said in 
the laws respecting such powerof removal. 
Now, it is evident that neither the courts 
nor the heads of departments acquire the 
right of removal under a general grant 
of executive power, for none such is 
made to them; nor upon the ground of 
any general injunction to see the laws 
executed, for no such general injunction 
is addressed to them. They neverthe- 
less hold the power of removal, as all 
admit, and they must hold it, therefore, 
simply as incident to, or belonging to, 
the power of appointment. There is no 
other clause under which they can possi- 
bly claim it. 

Again, let us suppose that the Con- 
stitution had given to the President the 
power of appointment, without consult- 
ing the Senate. Suppose it had said, 
" The President shall appoint ambassa- 
dors, other public ministers, judges of 
the Supreme Court, and all other officers 
of the United States." If the Constitu- 
tion had stood thus, the President would 
unquestionably have possessed the power 
of removal, where the tenure of office 
was not fixed; and no man, I imagine, 
■would in that case have looked for the 
removing power either in that clause 
which says the executive authority shall 
be vested in the President, or in that 
other clause which makes it his duty to 
see the laws faithfully executed. Every- 
body would have said, " The President 
possesses an uncontrolled power of ap- 
pointment, and that necessarily carries 
with it an uncontrolled power of re- 
moval, unless some permanent tenure be 
given to the office by the Constitution, 
or by law. ' ' 



And now, Sir, let me state, and ex- 
amine, the main argument, on which 
the decision of 1789 appears to rest it. 

The most plausible reasoning brought 
forward on that occasion may be fairly 
stated thus: "The executive power is 
vested in the President; this is the gen- 
eral rule of the Constitution. The asso- 
ciation of the Senate with the President, 
in exercising a particular function be- 
longing to the executive power, is an 
exception to this general rule, and ex- 
ceptions to general rules are to be taken 
strictly; therefore, though the Senate 
partakes of the appointing power, by ex- 
press provision, yet, as nothing is said of 
its participation in the removing power, 
such participation is to be excluded." 

The error of this argument, if I may 
venture to call it so, considering who 
used it,' lies in this. It supposes the 
power of removal to be held by the 
President under the general giant of 
executive power. Now, it is certain 
that the power of appointment is not 
held under that general grant, because 
it is particularly provided for, and is 
conferred, in express terras, on the 
President and Senate. If, therefore, 
the power of removal be a natural ap- 
pendage to the power of appointment, 
then it is not conferred by the general 
\Yords granting executive power to the 
President, but is conferred by the spe- 
cial clause which gives the appointing 
power to the President and Senate. So 
that the spirit of the very rule on which 
the argument of 1789, as I have stated 
it, relies, appears to me to produce a 
directly opjiosite result; for, if excep- 
tions to a general rule are to be taken 
strictly, when expressed, it is still more 
clear, when they are not expressed at 
all, that they are not to be implied ex- 
cept on evident and clear grounds ; and 
as the general power of appointment is 
confessedly given to the I'resident and 
Senate, no exception is to be implied in 
favor of one part of that general power, 
namely, the removing part, unless for 
some obvious and irresistible reason. 

1 Mr. Madison. See the discus.sion in Gales 
and Seatoii's Debates in Congress, Vol. I. p. 
473 et seq. 



THE ArrOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



403 



In other words, this argument which I 
am answeiing is not sound in its prem- 
ises, and therefore not sound in its con- 
clusion, if the grant of the power of 
appointment does naturally include also 
the power of removal, when this last 
power is not otherwise expressly pro- 
vided for; because, if the power of 
removal belongs to the power of appoint- 
ment, or necessarily follows it, then it 
has gone with it into the hands of the 
President and Senate; and the President 
does not hold it alone, as an implication 
or inference from the grant to him of 
general executive powers. 

The true application of that rule of 
construction, thus relied on, would pre- 
sent the argument, I think, in this 
form: " The appointing power is vested 
in the President and Senate; this is the 
general rule of the Constitution. The 
removing power is part of the appoint- 
ing power; it cannot be separated from 
the rest, but by supposing that an ex- 
ception was intended; but all exceptions 
to general rules are to be taken strictly, 
even when expressed; and, for a much 
stronger reason, they are not to be im- 
plied, when not expressed, unless inevita- 
ble necessity of construction requires it. ' ' 

On the whole. Sir, with the diffidence 
which becomes one who is reviewing the 
opinions of some of the ablest and wisest 
men of the age, I must still express my 
own conviction, that the decision of 
Congress in 1789, which separated the 
power of removal from the power of 
appointment, was founded on an erro- 
neous construction of the Constitution, 
and that it has led to gi'eat inconsisten- 
cies, as well as to great abuses, in the 
subsequent, and especially in the more 
recent, history of the government. 

Much has been said now, and much 
was said formerly, about the inconven- 
ience of denying this power to the Presi- 
dent alone. I agree that an argument 
drawn from this source may have weight, 
in a doubtful case; but it is not to be 
permitted that we shall presume the ex- 
istence of a ix)wer merely because we 
think it would be convenient. Nor is 
there, I think, any such glaring, strik- 
ing, or ceitaiu inconvenience as has 



been suggested. Sudden removals from 
office are seldom necessary ; we see how 
seldom, by reference to the practice of 
the government under all administra- 
tions which preceded the pi'esent. And 
if we look back over the removals which 
have been made in the last six years, 
there is no man who can maintain that 
there is one case in a hundred in which 
the country would have suffered the 
least inconvenience if no removal had 
been made without the consent of the 
Senate. Party might have felt the in- 
convenience, but the country never. 
Many removals have been made (by new 
appointments) during the session of the 
Senate; and if there has occurred one 
single case, in the whole six years, in 
which the public convenience required 
the removal of an officer in the recess, 
such case has escaped ray recollection. 
Besides, it is worthy of being remem- 
bered, when we are seeking for the true 
intent of the Constitution on this sub- 
ject, that there is reason to suppose that 
its framers expected the Senate would be 
in session a much larger part of the year 
than the House of Representatives, so 
that its concurrence could generally be 
had, at once, on any question of appoint- 
ment or removal. 

But this argument, drawn from the 
supposed inconvenience of denying an 
absolute power of removal to the Presi- 
dent, suggests still another view of the 
question. The argument asserts, that 
it must have been the intention of the 
framers of the Constitution to confer 
the power on the President, for the sake 
of convenience, and as an absolutely 
necessary power in his hands. Why, 
then, did they leave their intent doubt- 
ful? Why did theij not confer the power 
in express terms ? Why were they thus 
totally silent on a point of so much im- 
portance? 

Seeing that the removing power nat- 
urally belongs to the appointing power; 
seeing that, in other cases, in the same 
Constitution, its framers have left the 
one with the consequence of drawing 
the other after it, — if, in this in.stance, 
they meant to do what was uncommon 
and extraordinary, that is to say, if they 



404 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



meant to separate and divorce the two 
powers, why did they not say so? Why 
did they not express their meaning in 
plain words? Why should they take 
up the appointing power, and carefully 
define it, limit it, and restrain it, and 
yet leave to vague inference and loose 
construction an equally important pow- 
er, which all must admit to be closely 
connected with it, if not a part of it? 
If others can account for all this silence 
respecting the removing power, upon 
any other ground than that the framers 
of the Constitution regarded both powers 
as one, and supposed they had provided 
for them together, I confess I cannot. 
I have the clearest conviction, that they 
looked to no other mode of displacing 
an officer than by impeachment, or by 
the regular appointment of another per- 
son to the same place. 

But, Sir, whether the decision of 1789 
■were right or wrong, the bill before us 
applies to the actually existing state of 
things. It recognizes the President's 
power of removal, in express terms, as 
it has been practically exercised, inde- 
pendently of the Senate. The present 
bill does not disturb the power; but I 
wish it not to be understood that the 
power is, even now, beyond the reach 
of legislation. I believe it to be within 
the just power of Congress to reverse 
the decision of 1789, and I mean to hold 
myself at liberty to act, hereafter, upon 
that question, as I shall think the safety 
of tlie government and of the Constitu- 
tion may require. The present bill, 
however, proceeds upon the admission 
that the power does at present exist. 
Its words are : — 

" Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, 
in all nominations made by the President 
to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned 
by the exercise of the President's power to 
remove the said officers mentioned in the 
second section of this act, the fact of the 
removal shall be stated to the Senate, at 
the same time that the nomination is made, 
with a statement of the reasons for which 
such officer may have been removed." 

In my opinion, this provisioia is en- 
tirely constitutional, and highly expe- 
dient. 



The regulation of the tenure of office 
is a common exercise of legislative au- 
thority, and the power of Congress in 
this particular is not at all restrained or 
limited by any thing contained in the 
Constitution, except in reg.ard to judi- 
cial officers. All the rest is left to the 
ordinary discretion of the legislature. 
Congress may give to offices which it 
creates (except those of judges) what 
duration it pleases. When tiie office is 
created, and is to be filled, the President 
is to nominate the candidate to fill it; 
but when he comes into the office, he 
comes into it upon the conditions and 
restrictions which the law may have at- 
tached to it. If Congress were to de- 
clare by law that the Attorney-General, 
or the Secretary of State, should hold 
his office during good behavior, I am 
not aware of any ground on which such 
a law could be held unconstitutional. 
A provision of that kind in regard to 
such officers might be unwise, but I do 
not perceive that it would transcend the 
power of Congress. 

If the Constitution had not prescribed 
the tenure of judicial office. Congress 
might have thought it expedient to give 
the judges just such a tenure as the 
Constitution has itself provided; that is 
to say, a right to hold during good be- 
havior; and I am of opinion that such a 
law would have been perfectly constitu- 
tional. It is by law, in England, that 
the judges are made independent of the 
removing power of the ci'own. I do not 
think that the Constitution, by giving 
the power of appointment, or the power 
both of appointment and removal, to 
the President and Senate, intended to 
impose any restraint on the legislature, 
in regard to its authority of regulating 
the duties, powers, duration, or respon- 
sibility of office. I agree, that Congress 
ought not to do any thing which shall 
essentially impair that right of nomina- 
tion and appointment of certain officers, 
such as ministers, judges, &c., which 
the Constitution has vested in the Piesi- 
dent and Senate. But while the power 
of nomination and appointment is left 
fairly where the Constitution has placed 
it, I think the whole field of regulation 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



405 



is open to legislative discretion. If a 
law were to pass, declaring that district 
attorneys, or collectors of customs, should 
hold their offices four years, unless re- 
moved on conviction for misbehavior, 
no one could doubt its constitutional 
validity; because the legislature is nat- 
urally competent to prescribe the tenure 
of office. And is a reasonable check on 
the power of removal any thing more 
than a qualification of the tenure of of- 
fice? Let it be always remembered, 
that the President's removing power, as 
now exercised, is claimed and held under 
the general clause vesting in him the 
executive authority. It is implied, or 
inferred, from that clause alone. 

Now, if it is properly derived from 
that source, since the Constitution does 
not say how it shall be limited, how de- 
fined, or how carried into effect, it seems 
especially proper for Congress, under 
the general provision of the Constitu- 
tion which gives it authority to pass all 
laws necessary to carry into effect the 
powers conferred on any department, to 
regulate the subject of removal. And 
the regulation here required is of the 
gentlest kind. It only provides that the 
President shall make known to the Sen- 
ate his reasons for removal of officers 
of this description, when he does see fit 
to remove them. It might, I think, 
very justly go farther. It might, and 
perhaps it ought, to prescribe the form 
of removal, and the proof of the fact. 
It might, I also think, declare that the 
President should only suspend officers, 
at pleasure, tiU the next meeting of the 
Senate, according to the amendment sug- 
gested by the honorable member from 
Kentucky; and, if the present practice 
cannot be otherwise checked, this pro- 
vision, in my opinion, ought hereafter to 
be adopted. But I am content with the 
slightest degree of restraint which may 
be sufficient to arrest the totally un- 
necessary, unreasonable, and dangerous 
exercise of the power of removal. I 
desire only, for the present at least, 
that, when the President turns a man 
out of office, he should give his reasons 
for it to the Senate, when he nominates 
another person to fill the place. Let 



him give these reasons, and stand on 
them. If they are fair and honest, he 
need have no fear in stating them. It 
is not to invite any trial; it is not to 
give the removed officer an opportunity 
of defence; it is not to excite contro- 
versy and debate ; it is simply that the 
Senate, and ultimately the jiublic, may 
know the grounds of removal. I deem 
this degree of regulation, at least, neces- 
sary; unless we are willing to submit all 
these officers to an absolute and a per- 
fectly irresponsible removing power; a 
power which, as recently exercised, tends 
to turn the whole body of public officers 
into partisans, dependants, favorites, 
sycophants, and man-worshippers. 

Mr. President, without pursuing the 
discussion fm-ther, I will detain the Sen- 
ate only while I recapitulate the opinions 
which I have expressed ; because I am 
far less desirous of influencing the judg- 
ment of others, than of making clear the 
grounds of my own judgment. 

I think, then. Sir, that the power of 
appointment natui'ally and necessarily 
includes the power of removal where no 
limitation is expressed, nor any tenure 
but that at will declared. The power 
of appointment being conferred on the 
President and Senate, I think the power 
of removal went along with it, and 
should have been regarded as a part of 
it, and exercised by the same hands. I 
think, consequently, that the decision of 
1789, which implied a power of removal 
separate from the appointing power, was 
erroneous. 

But I think the decision of 1789 has 
been established by practice, and recog- 
nized by subsequent laws, as the settled 
construction of the Constitution, and 
that it is our duty to act upon the case 
accordingly, for the present ; without 
admitting that Congress may not, here- 
after, if necessity shall require it, re- 
verse the decision of 1789. I think the 
legislature possesses the power of regu- 
lating the condition, duration, cjualifica- 
tion, and tenure of office, in all cases 
where the Constitution has made no ex- 
press provision on the subject. 

I am, therefore, of opinion, that it is 
competent for Congress to declare by 



406 



THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 



law, as one qvialification of the tenure 
of office, that the incumbent shall re- 
main in place till the President shall 
remove him, for reasons to be stated to 
the Senate. And I am of opinion that 
this qualification, mild and gentle as it 



is, will have some effect in arresting the 
evils which beset the progress of the 
government, and seriously threaten its 
future prosperity. 

These are the reasons for which I give 
my support to this bill. 



NOTE. 



This speech is singular among the 
speeches of Mr. Webster, as it exhibits 
him as a " Strict-Coiistructionist," and as a 
master of that peculiar kind of deductive 
reasoning which is commonly considered 
the special distinction of his great antago- 
nist, Mr. Calhoun. In subtilty and refine- 
ment of argument it is fully the match of 
most of Mr. Calhoun's elaborate disquisi- 
tions. At the time of its delivery it ex- 
cited the almost savage ire of John Quincy 



Adams, as will be seen by reference to the 
latter's " Diary." It was in connection 
with this speech that Mr. Adams speaks 
of "the rotten heart of Daniel Webster." 
How such a purely intellectual feat as this, 
one so entirely passionless and impersonal, 
should be referred to rottenness of heart, is 
one of the unexplained mysteries of the 
operations of Mr. Adams's understanding, 
when that understanding was misled by 
personal antipathy. 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL 

IN 1835. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
14x11 OF JANUARY, 1830, ON MR. BENTON'S RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROPRI- 
ATING THE SURPLUS REVENUE TO NATIONAL DEFENCE. 



It is not my purpose, Mr. President, 
to make any remark on the state of oiu- 
affairs with France. The time for that 
discussion has not come, and I wait. 
We are in daily expectation of a com- 
munication from tlie President, whicir 
will give us light; and we are author- 
ized to expect a recommendation by him 
of such measures as he thinks it may be 
necessary and jiroper for Congress to 
adopt. I do not anticipate him. In 
this most important and delicate busi- 
ness, it is the proper duty of the exec- 
utive to go forward, and I, for one, do 
not intend either to be drawn or driven 
into the lead. When official informa- 
tion shall be before us, and when meas- 
ures shall be recommended upon the 
proper responsibility, I shall endeavor 
to form the best judgment I can, and 
shall act according to its dictates. 

I rise, now, for another purpose. This 
resolution has drawn on a debate upon 
the general conduct of the Senate during 
the last session of CongTcss, and espe- 
cially in regard to the proposed grant of 
the three millions to the President on 
the last night of the session. My main 
object is to tell the story of this transac- 
tion, and to exhibit the conduct of the 
Senate fairly to the public view. I owe 
this duty to the Senate. I owe it to the 
committee with which I am connected; 
and although whatever is personal to an 
individual is generally of too little im- 
portance to bo made the subject of much 



remark, I hope I may be permitted to 
say a few words in defence of my own 
reputation, in reference to a matter which 
has been gi'eatly misrepresented. 

This vote for the three millions was 
proposed by the House of Ref)resenta- 
tives as an amendment to the fortifica- 
tion bill; and the loss of that bill, three 
millions and all, is the charge which has 
been made upon the Senate, sounded 
over all the land, and now again re- 
newed. I propose to give the true his- 
tory of this bill, its origin, its progress, 
and its loss. 

Before attempting that, however, let 
me remark, for it is worthy to be re- 
marked and remembered, that the busi- 
ness brought before the Senate last 
session, important and various as it was, 
and both public and private, was all 
gone through with most uncommon de- 
spatch and promptitude. Xo session 
has witnessed a more complete clearing 
off and finishing of the subjects before 
us. The communications from the other 
house, whether bills or whatever else, 
were especially attended to in a proper 
season, and with that ready respect which 
is due from one house to the other. 
I recollect nothing of any importance 
which came to us from the House of 
liepresentatives, which was neglected, 
overlooked, or disregarded by the Sen- 
ate. 

On the other hand, it was the misfor- 
tune of the Senate, and, as I think, the 



408 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



misfortune of the country, that, owing 
to the state of business in the House of 
Representatives towards the close of the 
session, several measures which had been 
matured in the Senate, and passed into 
bills, did not receive attention, so as to 
be either agreed to or rejected, in the 
other branch of the legislature. They 
fell, of course, by the termination of the 
session. 

Among these measi;res may be men- 
tioned the following, viz. : — 

The Post-Office Reform Bill, 
which passed the Senate unanbnouslii , 
and of the necessity for which the whole 
country is certainly now most abun- 
dantly satisfied; 

The Custom-IIouse Regulations 
Bill, which also passed nearly unan- 
imously, after a very laborious prepara- 
tion by the Committee on Commerce, 
and a full discussion in the Senate; 

The Judiciary Bill, passed here by 
a majority of thirty-one to five, and 
which has again already passed the Sen- 
ate at this session with onlv a sina;le dis- 
senting vote ; 

The bill indemnifying claimants 
FOR French spoliations before 1800; 

The bill regulating the deposit 
OF the public money in the deposit 
banks ; 

The bill respecting the tenure 
of certain offices, and the power 
of removal from office; which has 
now again been passed to be engrossed, 
in the Senate, by a decided majority. 

All these important measures, matured 
and passed in the Senate in the course 
of the session, and many others of less 
importance, were sent to the House of 
Representatives, and we never heard any 
thing more from them. They there 
found their graves. 

It is worthy of being remarked, also, 
that the attendance of members of the 
Senate was remarkably full, particularly 
toward the end of the session. On the 
last day, every Senator was in his place 
tin very near the hour of adjournment, 
as the journal will show. We had no 
breaking up for want of a quorum ; no 
delay, no calls of the Senate; nothing 
which was made necessary by the negli- 



gence or inattention of the members of 
this body. On the vote of the three 
millions of dollars, which was taken at 
about eight o'clock in the evening, forty- 
eight votes were given, every member 
of the Senate being in his place and an- 
swering to his name. This is an in- 
stance of punctuality, diligence, and 
labor, continued to the very end of an 
arduous session, wholly without exam- 
ple or parallel. 

The Senate, then. Sir, must stand, in 
the judgment of every man, fully ac- 
quitted of all remissness, all negligence, 
all inattention, amidst the fatigue and 
exhaustion of the closing hours of Con- 
gress. Nothing passed unheeded, noth- 
ing was overlooked, nothing forgotten, 
and nothing slighted. 

And now, Sir, I would proceed imme- 
diately to give the history of the fortifi- 
cation bill, if it were not necessary, as 
introductory to that history, and as show- 
ing the circumstances under which the 
Senate was called on to transact the pub- 
lic business, first to refer to another bill 
which was before us, and to the proceed- 
ings which were had ujjon it. 

It is well known, Sir, that the annual 
appropriation bills always originate in 
the House of Representatives. This is 
so much a matter of course, that no one 
ever looks to see such a bill first brought 
forward in the Senate. It is also well 
known. Sir, that it has been usual, here- 
tofore, to make the annual appropria- 
tions for the Military Academy at West 
Point in the general bill which provides 
for the pay and support of the army. 
But last year the army bill did not con- 
tain any appropriation whatever for the 
support of West Point. I took notice of 
this singular omission when the bill was 
before the Senate, but presumed, and 
indeed understood, that the House would 
send us a separate bill for the Military 
Academy. The army bill, therefore, 
passed; but no bill for the Academy at 
AVest Point appeared. We waited for 
it from day to day, and from week to 
week, but waited in vain. At length, 
the time for sending bills from one house 
to the other, according to the joint rules 
of the two houses, expired, and no bill 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



409 



had made its appearance for the support 
of the Military Academy. These joint 
rules, as is well known, are sometimes 
suspended on the application of one 
house to the other, in favor of particular 
bills, whose progress has been unexpect- 
edly delaj-ed, but which the public in- 
terest requires to be passed. But the 
House of Representatives sent us no re- 
quest to suspend the rules in favor of 
a bill for the support of the Military 
Academy, nor made any other proposi- 
tion to save the institution from imme- 
diate dissolution. Notwithstanding all 
the talk about a war, and the necessity 
of a vote for the three millions, the Mil- 
itary Academy, an institution cherished 
so long, and at so much expense, was on 
the very point of being entii^ely broken 
up. 

Now it so happened, Sir, that at this 
time there was another appropriation 
bill which had come from the House 
of Representatives, and was before the 
Committee on Finance here. This bill 
was entitled " An Act making appropri- 
ations for the civil and diplomatic ex- 
penses of the government for the year 
1835." 

In this state of things, several mem- 
bers of the House of Representatives ap- 
plied to the committee, and besought us 
to save the Military Academy by annex- 
ing the necessary appropriations for its 
support to the bill for civil and diplo- 
matic service. AVe spoke to them, in 
reply, of the unfitness, the irregularity, 
the incongruity, of this forced union of 
such dissimilar subjects ; but they told us 
it was a case of absolute necessity, and 
tliat, without resorting to this mode, 
the appropriation could not get through. 
We acquiesced, Sir, in these suggestions. 
AVe went out of om* way. We agreed to 
do an extraordinary and an u-regular 
thing, in order to save the public busi- 
ness from miscarriage. By direction of 
the committee, I moved the Senate to 
add an appropriation for the Military 
Academy to the bill for defraying civil 
and diplomatic expenses. The bill was 
so amended; and in this form the ap- 
propriation was finally made. 

But this was not all. This bill for 



the civil and diplomatic service, being 
thus amended by tacking the Military 
Academy to it, was sent back by us to 
the House of Representatives, where its 
length of tail was to be still much fur- 
ther increased. That house had before 
it several subjects for provision, and for 
appropriation, upon which it had not 
passed any bill before the time for pass- 
ing bills to be sent to the Senate had 
elapsed. I was anxious that these 
things should, in some way, be provided 
for; and when the diplomatic bill came 
back, drawing the Military Academy 
after it, it was thought prudent to at- 
tach to it several of these other provis- 
ions. There were propositions to pave 
the streets in the city of Washington, 
to repair the Capitol, and various other 
things, which it was necessary to pro- 
vide for; and they, therefore, were put 
into the same bill, by way of amend- 
ment to an amendment ; that is to say, 
Mr. President, \ve had been j^revailed 
on to amend their bill for defraying the 
salary of our ministers abroad, by add- 
ing an appropriation for the Military 
Academy, and they proposed to amend 
this our amendment by adding matter 
as germane to it as it was itself to the 
original bill. There was also the Presi- 
dent's gardener. His salary was unpro- 
vided for; and there was no way of 
remedying this important omission, but 
by giving him place in the diplomatic 
service bill, among charges d'affaires, 
envoys extraordinary, and ministers 
plenipotentiary. In and among these 
ranks, therefore, he was formally intro- 
duced by the amendment of the House, 
and there he now stands, as you will 
readily see by turning to the law. 

Sir, I have not the pleasure to know 
this useful person; but should I see him, 
some morning, overlooking the Avork- 
men in the lawns, walks, copses, and 
parterres which adorn the grounds 
around the President's residence, con- 
sidering the company into which we 
have introduced him, I should expect 
to see, at least, a small diplomatic but- 
ton on his working jacket. 

When these amendments came from 
the House, and were road at our table, 



410 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



though they caused a smile, they were 
yet adopted, and the law passed, almost 
with the rapidity of a comet, and with 
something like the same length of tail. 

Now, Sir, not one of these irregulari- 
ties or incongruities, no part of this 
jumbling together of distinct and differ- 
ent subjects, was in the slightest degree 
occasioned by any thing done, or omit- 
ted to be done, on the part of the Sen- 
ate. Their proceedings were all regu- 
lar; their decision was prompt, their 
despatch of the public business correct 
and reasonable. There was nothing of 
disorganization, nothing of procrastina- 
tion, nothing evincive of a temper to 
embarrass or obstruct the public busi- 
ness. If the history which I have now 
truly given shows that one thing was 
amended by another, which had no sort 
of connection with it ; that unusual ex- 
pedients were resorted to; and that the 
laws, instead of arrangement and sym- 
metry, exhibit anomaly, confusion, and 
the most grotesque associations, it is 
nevertheless true, that no part of all 
this was made necessary by ^^s. We 
deviated from the accustomed modes of 
legislation only when we were suppli- 
cated to do so, in order to supply bald 
and glaring deficiencies in measures 
which were before us. 

But now, Mr. President, let me come 
to the fortification bill, the lost bill, 
which not only now, but on a graver 
occasion, has been lamented like the 
lost Pleiad. 

This bill. Sir, came from the House 
of Representatives to the Senate in the 
usual way, and was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Finance. Its appropriations 
were not large. Indeed, they appeared 
to the committee to be quite too small. 
It struck a majority of the committee at 
once, that there were several fortifica- 
tions on the coast, either not provided 
for at all, or not adequately provided 
for, by this bill. The whole amount of 
its appropriations was four hundred or 
four hundred and thirty thousand dol- 
lars. It contained no grant of three 
millions, and if the Senate had passed it 
the very day it came from the House, 
not only would there have been no ap- 



propriation of the three millions, but, 
Sir, none of these other sums which the 
Senate did insert in the bill. Others 
besides ourselves saw the deficiencies of 
this bill. We had communications with 
and from the departments, and we in- 
serted in the bill every thing which any 
department recommended to us. We 
took care to be sure that nothing else 
was coming. And we then reported the 
bill to the Senate with our proposed' 
amendments. Among these amend- 
ments, there was a sum of f75,000 for 
Castle Island in Boston harbor, $100,000 
for defences in Maryland, and so forth. 
These amendments were agreed to by 
the Senate, and one or two others added, 
on the motion of membens; and the 
bill, as thus amended, was returned to 
the House. 

And now. Sir, it becomes important to 
ask. When was this bill, thus amended, 
returned to the House of Representa- 
tives? Was it unduly detained here, so 
that the House was obliged afterwards 
to act upon it suddenly? This question 
is material to be asked, and material to 
be answered, too, and the journal does 
satisfactorily answer it; for it appears 
by the journal that the bill was returned 
to the House of Representatives on 
Tuesday, the 24th of February, one 
tvhnle iceek before the close of tlie session. 
And from Tuesday, the 2ith of Febru- 
ary, to Tuesday, the 3d day of March, 
we heard not one word from this bill. 
Tuesday, the 3d day of March, was, of 
course, the last day of the session. We 
assembled here at ten or eleven o'clock 
in the morning of that day, and sat until 
three in the afternoon, and still we were 
not informed whether the House had 
finally passed the bill. As it was an 
important matter, and belonged to that 
part of the public business which usually 
receives particular attention from the 
Committee on Finance, I bore the sub- 
ject in my mind, and felt some solici- 
tude about it, seeing that the session 
was drawing so near to a close. I took 
it for granted, however, as I had not 
heard any thing to the contrary, that 
the amendments of the Senate would 
not be objected to, and that, when a 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



411 



convenient time should arrive for taking 
up tlie bill in the House, it would be 
passed at once into a law, and we should 
hear no more about it. Not the slis:ht- 
est intimation was given, either that the 
executive wished for any larger appro- 
priation, or that it was intended in the 
House to insert such larger appropria- 
tion. Not a syllable escaped from any- 
body, and came to our knowledge, that 
any further alteration whatever was in- 
tended in the bill. 

At three o'clock in the afternoon of 
the 3d of March, the Senate took its 
recess, as is usual in that period of the 
session, until five o'clock. At five 
o'clock we again assembled, and pro- 
ceeded with the business of the Senate 
until eight o'clock in the evening; and 
at eight o'clock in the evening, and not 
before, the clerk of the House appeared 
at our door, and announced that the 
House of Representatives had disagreed 
to one of the Senate's amendments, 
agreed to others; and to two of those 
amendments, namely, the fourth and 
fifth, it had agreed, with an amendment 
of its own. 

Now, Sir, these fourth and fifth 
amendments of ours were, one, a vote 
of $75,000 for Castle Island in Boston 
harbor, and the other, a vote of $100,000 
for certain defences in Maryland. And 
what. Sir, was the addition which the 
House of Representatives proposed to 
make, by way of ^^ amendment" to a 
vole of $75,000 for repairing the works 
in Boston harbor? Here, Sir, it is: — 

" And be it further enacted. That the sum 
of three millions of dollars be, and the 
same is hereby, appropriated, out of any 
money in the treasury not otherwise ap- 
propriated, to be expended, in whole or in 
part, under the direction of the President 
of the United States, for the military and 
naval service, including fortifications and 
ordnance, and the increase of the navy : 
Provided, such expenditures shall be ren- 
dered necessary for the defence of the 
country prior to the next meeting of Con- 
gress." 

This proposition. Sir, was thus unex- 
pectedly and suddenly put to us, at 
eight o'clock in the evening of the last 



day of the session. Unusual, unprece- 
dented, extraordinary, as it obviously 
is, on the face of it, the manner of pre- 
senting it was still more extraordinary. 
The President had asked for no such 
grant of money; no department had 
recommended it; no estimate had sug- 
gested it ; no reason whatever was given 
for it. No emergency had happened, 
and nothing new had occurred; every 
thing known to the administration, at 
that hour, respecting our foreign rela- 
tions, had certainly been known to it 
for days and weeks. 

With what propriety, then, could the 
Senate be called on to sanction a pro- 
ceeding so entirely irregular and anom- 
alous? Sir, I recollect the occurrences 
of the moment very well, and I remem- 
ber the impression which this vote of 
the House seemed to make all round the 
Senate. We had just come out of exec- 
utive session; the doors were but just 
opened; and I hardly remember that 
there was a single spectator in the hall or 
the galleries. I had been at the clerk's 
table, and had not reached my seat, 
when the message was read. All the 
Senators were in the chamber. I heard 
the message, certainly with great sur- 
prise and astonishment; and I immedi- 
ately moved the Senate to disagree to 
this vote of the House. My relation to 
the subject, in consequence of mj con- 
nection with the Committee on Finance, 
made it my duty to propose some course, 
and I had not a moment's doubt or 
hesitation what that course ought to 
be. I took upon myself, then. Sir, the 
responsibility of moving that the Sen- 
ate should disagree to this vote, and I 
now acknowledge that responsibility. Tt 
might be presumptuous to say that I 
took a leading part, but I certainly took 
an early part, a decided part, and an 
earnest part, in rejecting this broad 
grant of three millions of dollars, 
without limitation of purpose or sjieci- 
fication of object, called for by no rec- 
ommendation, founded on no estimate, 
made necessary by no state of things 
which was known to us. Certainly, 
Sir, I took a part in its rejection ; and I 
stand here, in my place in the Senate, 



412 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



to-day, ready to defend the part so taken 
by me; or, rather, Sir, I disclaim all 
defence, and all occasion of defence, 
and I assert it as meritorious to have 
been among those who arrested, at the 
earliest moment, this extraordinary de- 
parture from all settled usage, and, as I 
think, from plain constitutional injunc- 
tion, — this indefinite voting of a vast 
sum of money to mere executive discre- 
tion, without limit assigned, without 
object specified, without reason given, 
and without the least control. 

Sir, I am told, that, in opposing this 
grant, I spoke with warmth, and I sup- 
pose I may have done so. If I did, it 
was a warmth springing from as honest 
a conviction of duty as ever influenced 
a public man. It was spontaneous, un- 
affected, sincere. There had been among 
us, Sir, no consultation, no concert. 
There could have been none. Between 
the reading of the message and my mo- 
tion to disagree, there was not time 
enough for any two members of the 
Senate to exchange five words on the 
subject. The proposition was sudden 
and perfectly unexpected. I resisted it, 
as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and 
dangerous in its precedent; as wholly 
unnecessary, and as violating the plain 
intention, if not the express words, of 
the Constitution. Before the Senate, 
then, I avowed, and before the country 
I now avow, my part in this opposition. 
Whatsoever is to fall on those who sanc- 
tioned it, of that let me have my full 
share. 

The Senate, Sir, rejected this grant by 
a vote of TWENTY-NINE against nineteen. 
Those twenty-nine names are on the 
journal ; and whensoever the expunging 
process may commence, or how far so- 
ever it may be carried, I pray it, in 
mercy, not to erase mine from that rec- 
ord. I beseech it, in its sparing good- 
ness, to leave me that proof of attach- 
ment to duty and to principle. It may 
draw around it, over it, or through it, 
black lines, or red lines, or any lines; 
it may mark it in any way which either 
the most prostrate and fantastical spirit 
of man-tvorship, or the most ingenious 
and elaborate study of self -degradation, 



may devise, if only it will leave it so 
that those who inherit my blood, or who 
may hereafter care for my reputation, 
shall be able to behold it where it now 
stands. 

The House, Sir, insisted on this 
amendment. The Senate adhered to its 
disagreement; the House asked a con- 
ference, to which request the Senate im- 
mediately acceded. The committee of 
confei-ence met, and in a very short 
time came to an agreement. They 
agreed to recommend to their respective 
houses, as a substitute for the vote pro- 
posed by the House, the following: — 

"As an additional appropriation for 
arming the fortifications of the United 
States, three hundred thousand dollars. " 
"As an additional appropriation for 
the repairs and equijiment of ships of 
war of the United States, five hundred 
thousand dollars." 

I immediately reported this agreement 
of the committee of conference to the 
Senate; but, inasmuch as the bill was 
in the House of Representatives, the 
Senate could not act further on the mat- 
ter until the House should first have con- 
sidered the report of the committee, 
decided thereon, and sent us the bill. I 
did not myself take any note of the par*- 
ticular hour of this part of the transac- 
tion. The honorable member from Vir- 
ginia 1 says he looked at his watch at the 
time, and he knows that I had come 
from the conference, and was in my seat, 
at a quarter past eleven. I have no 
reason to think that he is under any 
mistake on this particular. He says it 
so happened that he had occasion to take 
notice of the hour, and well remembers 
it. It could not well have been later 
than this, as any one will be satisfied 
who will look at our journals, public 
and executive, and see what a mass of 
business was despatched after I came 
from the committee, and before the ad- 
journment of the Senate. Having made 
the report. Sir, I had no doubt that both 
houses would concur in the result of the 
conference, and looked every moment 
for the ofBcer of the House bringing the 
bill. He did not come, however, and I 

1 Mr. Leigh. 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



413 



pretty soon learned that there was doubt 
whether the committee on the part of 
the House would report to the House the 
agreement of the conferees. At first, I 
did not at all credit this ; but was con- 
firmed by one communication after an- 
other, until I was obliged to think it 
true. Seeing that the bill was thus in 
danger of being lost, and intending at 
any rate that no blame should justly 
attach to the Senate, I immediately 
moved the following resolution: — 

" Resolved, That a message be sent to 
the honorable the House of Representa- 
tives, respectfully to remind the House 
of the report of the committee of con- 
ference appointed on the disagreeing 
votes of the two houses on the amend- 
ment of the House to the amendment of 
the Senate to the bill respecting the for- 
tifications of the United States." 

You recollect this resolution, Sir, hav- 
ing, as I well remember, taken some 
part on the occasion. ^ 

This resolution was promptly passed ; 
the secretary carried it to the House, 
and delivered it. What was done in the 
House on the receipt of this message 
now appears from the printed journal. 
I have no wish to comment on the pro- 
ceedings there recoriled : all mav read 
them, and each be able to form his 
own opinion. Suffice it to say, that 
the House of Representatives, having 
then possession of the bill, chose to 
retain that possession, and never acted 
on the report of the committee of con- 
ference. The bill, therefore, was lost. 
It was lost in the House of Representa- 
tives. It died there, and there its re- 
mains are to be found. No opportunity 
was given to the members of the House 
to decide whether they would agree to 
the report of the committee or not. 
From a quarter past eleven, when the 
report was agreed to, until t\Ao or three 
o'clock in the morning, the House re- 
mained in session. If at any time there 
was not a quorum of members present, 
the attendance of a quorum, "we are to 
presume, might have been commanded, 
as there was undou1)tedly a great major- 
ity of members still in the city. 

1 Mr. King, of Alabama, was in the chair. 



But, Sir, there is one other transaction 
of the evening which I now feel bound 
to state, because I think it quite impor- 
tant on several accounts, that it should 
be known. 

A nomination was pending before the 
Senate for a judge of the Supreme 
Court. In the course of the sitting, that 
nomination was called up, and, on mo- 
tion, was indefinitely postponed. In 
other words, it was rejected; for an in- 
definite postponement is a rejection. 
The office, of course, remained vacant, 
and the nomination of another person to 
fill it became necessary. The President 
of the United States was then in the 
Capitol, as is usual on the evening of the 
last day of the session, in the chaniber 
assigned to him, and with the heads of 
departments around him. When nomi- 
nations are rejected under these circum- 
stances, it has been usual for the Presi- 
dent immediately to transmit a new 
nomination to the Senate; otherwise the 
office must remain vacant till the next 
session, as the vacancy in such case has 
not happened in the recess of Congress. 
The vote of the Senate, indefinitely post- 
poning this nomination, was carried to 
the President's room by the secretary of 
the Senate. The President told the sec- 
retary that it was more than an hour 
past twelve o'clock, and that he could 
receive no further commmiications from 
the Senate, and immediately after, as I 
have understood, left the Capitol. The 
secretary brought back the paper con- 
taining the certified copy of the vote of 
the Senate, and indorsed thereon the 
substance of the President's answer, and 
also added, that, according to his own 
watch, it was quarter past one o'clock. 

There are two views. Sir, in which 
this occurrence may well deserve to be 
noticed. One is as to the connection 
which it may perhaps have had with the 
loss of the fortification bill ; the otlier is 
as to its general importance, as intro- 
ducing a new rule, or a new practice, 
respecting the intercour.se between the 
President and the two houses of Congress 
on the last day of the session. 

On the first point, I shall only observe 
that the fact of the President's having 



414 ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



declined to receive this communication 
from the Senate, and of his having left 
the Capitol, was immediately known in 
the House of Representatives. It was 
quite obvious, that, if he could not re- 
ceive a communication from the Senate, 
neither could he receive a bill from the 
House of Representatives fpr his signa- 
ture. It was equally obvious, that, if, 
under these circumstances, the House of 
Representatives should agree to the re- 
port of the committee of conference, so 
that the bill should pass, it must, never- 
theless, fail to become a law for want of 
the President's signature; and that, in 
that case, the blame of losing the bill, 
on whomsoever else it might fall, could 
not be laid upon the Senate. 

On the more general point, I must say. 
Sir, that this decision of the President, 
not to hold communication with the 
houses of Congress after twelve o'clock 
at night, on the 3d of March, is quite 
new. No such objection has ever been 
made before by any President. No one 
of them has ever declined communicat- 
ing with either house at any time during 
the continuance of its session on that 
day. All Presidents heretofore have left 
with the houses themselves to fix their 
hour of adjournment, and to bring their 
session for the day to a close, whenever 
they saw fit. 

It is notorious, in point of fact, that 
nothing is more common than for both 
houses to sit later than twelve o'clock, 
for the purpose of completing measures 
which are in the last stages of their 
progress. Amendments are projiosed 
and agreed to, bills passed, enrolled 
bills signed by the presiding officers, 
and other important legislative acts per- 
formed, often at two or three o'clock in 
the morning. All this is very well 
known to gentlemen who have been for 
any considerable time members of Con- 
gress. And all Presidents have signed 
bills, and have also made nominations 
to the Senate, without objection as to 
time, whenever bills have been presented 
for signature, or whenever it became ne- 
cessary to make nominations to the Sen- 
ate, at any time during the session of the 
respective houses on that day. 



And all this. Sir, I suppose to be per- 
fectly right, correct, and legal. There 
is no clause of the Constitution, nor is 
there any law, which declares that the 
term of office of members of the House 
of Representatives shall expire at twelve 
o'clock at night on the 3d of March. 
They are to hold for two years, but the 
precise hour for the commencement of 
that term of two years is nowhere fixed 
by constitutional or legal provision. It 
has been established by usage and by 
inference, and very properly established, 
that, since the first Congress commenced 
its existence on the first Wednesday in 
March, 1789, which happened to be the 
fourth day of the month, therefore the 4th 
of March is the day of the commence- 
ment of each successive term; but no 
hour is fixed by law or practice. The 
true rule is, as I think, most undoubt- 
edly, that the session held on the last 
day constitutes the last day for all legis- 
lative and legal purposes. While the 
session begun on that day continues, the 
day itself continues, according to the 
established practice both of legislative 
and judicial bodies. This could not 
well be otherwise. If the precise mo- 
ment of actual time were to settle such 
a matter, it would be material to ask, 
Who shall settle the time? Shall it be 
done by public authority, or shall every 
man observe the tick of his own watch? 
If absolute time is to furnish a precise 
rule, the excess of a minute, it is obvious, 
would be as fatal as the excess of an 
hour. Sir, no bodies, judicial or legis- 
lative, have ever been so hypercritical, 
so astute to no purpose, so much moi-e 
nice than wise, as to govern themselves 
by any such ideas. The session for the 
day, at whatever hour it commences, or 
at whatever hour it breaks up, is the 
legislative day. Every thing has refer- 
ence to the commencement of that diur- 
nal session. For instance, this is the 
14th day of January; we assembled here 
to-day at twelve o'clock ; our journal is 
dated January 14th, and if we should 
remain here until five o'clock to-morrow 
morning (and the Senate has sometimes 
sat so late), our proceedings would still 
bear date of the 14th of January; they 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



415 



would be so stated upon the journal, 
and the journal is a record, and is a 
conclusive record, so far as respects the 
proceedings of the body. 

It is so in judicial proceedings. If a 
man were on trial for his life, at a late 
hour on the last day allowed by law for 
the holding of the court, and the jury 
should acquit him, but happened to re- 
main so long in deliberation that they 
did not bring in their verdict till after 
twelve o'clock, is it all to be held for 
naught, and the man to be tried over 
again? Are all verdicts, judgments, and 
orders of courts null and void, if made 
after midnight on the day which the law 
prescribes as the last day? It would be 
easy to show by authority, if authority 
could be wanted for a thing the reason 
of which is so clear, that the day lasts 
while the daily session lasts. When the 
court or the legislative body adjourns 
for that day, the day is over, and not 
before. 

I am told, indeed, Sir, that it is ti'ue 
that, on this same 3d day of March last, 
not only were other things transacted, 
but that the bill for the repair of the 
Cumberland Road, an important and 
much litigated measure, actually re- 
ceived the signature of our presiding 
officer after twelve o'clock, was then 
sent to the President, and signed by 
him. I do not affirm this, because I 
took no notice of the time, or do not 
remember it if I did ; but I have heard 
the matter so stated. 

I see no reason. Sir, for the introduc- 
tion of this new practice; no principle 
on wliich it can be justified, no necessity 
for it, no propriety in it. As yet, it 
1 as been applied only to the President's 
intercourse with the Senate. Certainly 
it is equally applicable to his inter- 
course with l)oth houses in legislative 
matters; and if it is to prevail here- 
after, it is of much importance that it 
should be known. 

The President of the United States, 
Sir, lias alluded to this loss of the forti- 
fication bill in his message at the open- 
ing of the session, and he has alluded, 
also, in the same message, to the rejec- 
tion of the vote 'of the three millions. 



On the first point, that is, the loss of 
the whole bill, and the causes of that 
loss, this is his language: "Much loss 
and inconvenience have been experi- 
enced in consequence of the failure of 
the bill containing the ordinary appro- 
priations for fortifications, which passed 
one branch of the national legislature 
at the last session, but was lost in the 
other." 

If the President intended to say that 
the bill, having originated in the House 
of Representatives, passed the Senate, 
and was yet afterwards lost in the House 
of Representatives, he was entirely cor- 
rect. But he has been wholly misin- 
formed, if he intended to state that the 
bill, having passed the House, was lost in 
the Senate. As I have already stated, 
the bill was lost in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. It drew its last breath there. 
That House never let go its hold on it 
after the report of the committee of con- 
ference. But it held it, it retained it, 
and of course it died in its possession 
when the House adjourned. It is to be 
regretted that the President should have 
been misinformed in a matter of this 
kind, when the slightest reference to the 
journals of the two houses would have 
exhibited the correct history of the trans- 
action. 

I recur again, Mr. President, to the 
proposed grant of the three millions, for 
the purpose of stating somewhat more 
distinctly the true grounds of objection 
to that gi-ant. 

These grounds of objection were two ; 
the first was, that no such appropriation 
had been recommended by the President, 
or any of the departments. And what 
made this ground the stronger was, that 
the proposed grant was defended, so far 
as it was defended at all, upon an alleged 
necessity, growing out of our foreign 
relations. The foreign relations of the 
country are intrusted by the Constitu- 
tion to the lead and management of the 
executive government. The President 
not only is supposed to be, but usually 
is, much better informed on these inter- 
esting subjects than the houses of Con- 
gress. If there be danger of a rupture 
with a foreign state, he sees it soonest. 



416 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



All our ministers and agents abroad are 
but so many eyes, and ears, and oi'gans 
to communicate to him whatsoever oc- 
curs in foreign places, and to keep him 
well advised of all which may concern 
the interests of the United States. 
There is an especial propriety, there- 
fore, that, in this branch of the public 
service, Congress should always be able 
to avail itself of the distinct opinions 
and recommendations of the President. 
The two houses, and especially the 
House of Representatives, are the nat- 
ural guardians of the people's money. 
They are to keep it sacred, and to use it 
discreetly. They are not at liberty to 
spend it where it is not needed, nor to 
offer it for any purpose till a reasonable 
occasion for the expenditure be shown. 
Now, in this case, I repeat again, the 
President had sent us no recommenda- 
tion for any such appropriation ; no de- 
partment had recommended it; no esti- 
mate had contained it; in the whole 
history of the session, from the morning 
of the first day, down to eight o'clock 
in the evening of the last day, not one 
syllable had been said to us, not one 
hint suggested, showing that the Presi- 
dent deemed any such measure either 
necessary or proper. I state this strong- 
ly, Sir, but I state it truly. I state the 
matter as it is; and I wish to draw the 
attention of the Senate and of the coun- 
try strongly to this part of the case. I 
say again, therefore, that, when this 
vote for the three millions was proposed 
to the Senate, there was nothing before 
us showing that the President recom- 
mended any such appropriation. You 
very well know, Sir, that this objection 
was stated as soon as the message from 
the House was read. We all well re- 
member that this was the very point 
put forth by the honorable member from 
Tennessee,^ as being, if I may say so, 
the but-end of his argument in opposi- 
tion to the vote. He said, very signifi- 
cantly, and very forcibly, "It is not 
asked for by those who best know what 
the public service requires; how, then, 
are we to presume that it is needed? " 
This question, Sir, was not answered 

1 Mr. White, 



then; it never has been answered since; 
it never can be answered satisfacto- 
rily. 

But let me here again, Sir, recur to 
the message of the President. Speak- 
ing of the loss of the bill, he uses these 
words: " This failure was the more re- 
gretted, not only because it necessarily 
interrupted and delayed the progress of 
a system of national defence projected 
immediately after the last war, and 
since steadily pursued, but also because 
it contained a contingent appropriation, 
inserted in accordance with the views of 
the executive, in aid of this important 
object, and other brar^hes of the na- 
tional defence, some portions of which 
might have been most usefully applied 
during the past season." 

Taking these words of the message. 
Sir, and connecting them with the fact 
that the President had made no recom- 
mendation to Congress of any such ap- 
propriation, it strikes me that they fur- 
nish matter for very grave reflection. 
The President says that this proposed 
appropriation was " in accordance with 
the views of the executive"; that it 
was " in aid of an important object"; 
and that "some portions of it might 
have been most usefully applied during 
the past season . ' ' 

And now. Sir, I ask, if this be so, 
why was not this appropriation recom- 
mended to Congress by the President? 
I ask tliis question in the name of the 
Constitution of the United States; I 
stand on its own clear authority in ask- 
ing it; and I invite all those who re- 
member its injunctions, and who mean 
to respect them, to consider well how 
the question is to be answered. 

Sir, the Constitution is not yet an en- 
tire dead letter. There is yet some form 
of observance of its requirements; and 
even while any degree of formal respect 
is paid to it, I must be permitted to con- 
tinue the question. Why was not this 
appropriation recommended? It was in 
accordance with the President's views; 
it was for an important object; it might 
have been usefully expended. The 
President being of opinion, therefore, 
that the appropriaticrn was necessary 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



417 



and proper, how is it that it was not rec- 
oinmeiided to Congress? For, Sir, we 
all Icuow the plain and direct words in 
which the very first duty of the Presi- 
dent is imposed by the Constitution. 
If ere they are : — 

" He shall, from time to time, give 
to the Congress information of the state 
of the Union, and recommend to their 
consideration such measures as he shall 
judge necessary and expedient." 

After enumerating the powers of the 
T'resident, this is the first, the very first 
duty which the Constitution gravely en- 
joins upon him. And now. Sir, in no 
language of taunt or reproach, in no 
language of party attack, in terms of 
no asperity or exaggeration, but called 
upon by the necessity of defending my 
own vote upon the subject, as a public 
man, as a member of Congress here in 
my place, and as a citizen who feels as 
warm an attachment to the Constitution 
of the country as any other can, I de- 
mand lif any who may choose to give it 
an answer to this question: Why was 

NOT THIS MEASURE, WHICH THE PrESI- 
nENT DECLARES THAT HE THOUGHT 
NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT, RECOM- 
MENDED TO Congress? And why am 
I, and why are other members of Con- 
gress, whose path of duty the Constitu- 
tion says shall be enlightened by the 
President's opinions and communica- 
tions, to be charged with want of pa- 
triotism and want of fidelity to the 
country, because we refused an a[)pro- 
priation which the President, though it 
was in accordance with his views, and 
tliough he believed it important, would 
not, and did not, recommend to us? 
When tliese tpiestions are answered to 
the satisfaction of intelligent ami im- 
partial men, then, and not till then, let 
reproach, let censure, let suspicion of 
any kind, rest on the twenty-nine names 
which stand opposed to this appropria- 
tion. 

How, Sir, were we to know that this 
appropriation " was in accordance with 
the views of the executive"? IIo had 
not so told us, formally or informally. 
He had not only not recommended it to 
Congress, or either house of Congress, 



27 



but nobody on this floor had undertaken 
to speak in his behalf. No man got up 
to say, "The President desires it; he 
thinks it necessary, expedient, and 
proper." But, Sir, if any gentleman 
had risen to say this, it would not have 
answered the requisition of the Consti- 
tution. Not at all. It is not by a hint, 
an intimation, the suggestion of a 
friend, that the executive duty in (his 
respect is to be fulfilled. By no means. 
The President is to make a recommen- 
dation, — a public recommendation, an 
official recommendation, a resjionsible 
recommendation, not to one house, but 
to both houses ; it is to be a recommen- 
dation to Congress. If, on receiving 
such recommendation. Congress fail to 
pay it proper respect, the fault is theirs. 
If, deeming the measure necessary and 
expedient, the President fails to recom- 
mend it, the fault is his, clearly, dis- 
tinctly, and exclusively his. This, Sir, 
is the Constitution of the United States, 
or else I do not understand the Consti- 
tution of the United States. 

Does not every man see how entirely 
unconstitutional it is that the President 
should communicate his opinions or 
wishes' to Congress, on such grave and 
important subjects, otherwise than by a 
direct and responsible recommendation, 
a public and open recommendation, 
equally addressed and equally known 
to all whose duty calls upon them to act 
on the subject? What would be the 
state of things, if he might communi- 
cate his wishes or opinions privately to 
members of one house, and make no 
such communication to the other? 
Would not the two houses be neces- 
sarily jiut in immediate collision? 
Would they stand on equal footing? 
Would they have erpial information? 
What could ensue from such a manner 
of conducting the public business, but 
quarrel, confusion, and conflict? A 
member rises in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and moves a very large ap- 
propriation of money for military pur- 
poses. If he says he does it upon ex- 
ecutive recommendation, where is his 
voucher? The President is not like the 
British king, whose ministers and sec- 



418 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



retaries are in the House of Commons, 
and who are authorized, in certain cases, 
to express the opinions and wishes of 
their sovereign. We have no king's 
servants; at least, we have none known 
to the Constitution. Congress can know 
the opinions of the President only as he 
officially communicates them. It would 
be a curious inquiry in either house, 
when a large appropriation is moved, 
if it were necessary to ask whether the 
mover represented the President, spoke 
his sentiments, or, in other words, 
whether what he proposed were " in 
accordance with the views of the execu- 
tive." How could that be judged of? 
By the party he belongs to? Party is 
not quite strongly enough marked for 
that. By the airs he gives himself? 
Many might assume airs, if thereby 
they could give themselves such impor- 
tance as to be esteemed authentic exposi- 
tors of the executive will. Or is this 
will to be circulated in whispers; made 
known to the meetings of party men; 
intimated through the press; or com- 
municated in any other form, which 
still leaves the executive completely 
irresponsible; so that, while executive 
purposes or wishes pervade the ranks of 
party friends, influence their conduct, 
and unite their efforts, the open, di- 
rect, and constitutional responsibility is 
wholly avoided? Sir, this is not the 
Constitution of the United States, nor 
can it be consistent with any constitu- 
tion which professes to maintain sepa- 
rate departments in the government. 

Here, then. Sir, is abundant ground, 
in my judgment, for the vote of the 
Senate, and here I might rest it. But 
there is also another ground. The Con- 
stitution declares that no money shall 
be drawn from the treasury but in conse- 
quence of appropriations made by law. 
What is meant by ^'■appropriations'''' ? 
Does not this language mean that par- 
ticular sums shall be assigned by law to 
particular objects? How far this point- 
ing out and fixing the particular objects 
shall be carried, is a question that can- 
not be settled by any precise rule. But 
" specific appropriation," that is to say, 
the designation of every object for which 



money is voted, as far as such designa- 
tion is practicable, has been thought to 
be a most important republican princi- 
ple. In times past, popular parties have 
claimed great merit from professing to 
carry this doctrine much farther, and to 
adhere to it much more strictly, than 
their adversaries. Mr. Jefferson, espe- 
cially, was a gi'eat advocate for it, and 
held it to be indispensable to a safe and 
economical administration and disburse- 
ment of the public revenues. 

But what have the friends and admir- 
ers of Mr. Jefferson to say to this appro- 
priation ? Where do they find, in this 
proposed grant of three millions, a con- 
stitutional designation of object, and a 
particular and specific application of 
money? Have they forgotten, all for- 
gotten, and wholly abandoned even all 
pretence for specific a23propriation? If 
not, how could they sanction such a vote 
as this? Let me recall its terms. They 
are, that " the sum of three millions of 
dollars be, and the same is hereby, ap- 
propriated, out of any money in the 
treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
be expended, in whole or in part, under 
the direction of the President of the 
United States, for the military and naval 
service, including fortifications and ord- 
nance, and the increase of the navy; 
provided such expenditures shall be ren- 
dered necessary for the defence of the 
country prior to the next meeting of 
Congress." 

In the first place it is to be observed, 
that whether the money shall be used 
at all, or not, is made to depend on the 
discretion of the President. This is 
sufficiently liberal. It carries confi- 
dence far enough. But if there had 
been no other objections, if the objects 
of the appropriation had been suffi- 
ciently described, so that the President, 
if he expended the money at all, must 
expend it for pui-poses authorized by 
the legislature, and nothing had been 
left to his discretion but the question 
whether an emergency had arisen in 
which the authority ought to be exer- 
cised, I might not have felt bound to 
reject the vote. There are some prece- 
dents which might favor such a contin- 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



419 



gent provision, though the practice is 
dangerous, and ought not to be fol- 
lowed except in cases of clear necessity. 

But the insurmountable objection to 
the proposed grant was, that it specified 
no objects. It was as general as lan- 
guage could make it. It embraced 
every expenditure that could be called 
eitlier military or naval. It was to in<- 
clude "fortifications, ordnance, and the 
increase of the na\'y," but it was not 
confined to these. It embraced the 
whole general subject of military ser- 
vice. Under the authority of such a 
law, the President might repair ships, 
build ships, buy ships, enlist seamen, 
and do any thing and every thing else 
touching the naval service, without re- 
straint or control. 

He might repair such fortifications as 
he saw tit, and neglect the rest; arm 
such as he saw fit, and neglect the arm- 
ing of others; or build new fortifica- 
tions wherever he chose. But these 
unlimited powers over the fortifications 
and the navy constitute by no means 
the most dangerous part of the proposed 
authority; because, under that author- 
ity, his power to raise and employ 
land forces w'ould be equally abso- 
lute and uncontrolled. He might levy 
troops, embody a new army, call out 
the militia in numbers to suit his own 
discretion, and employ them as he saw 
fit. 

Now, Sir, does our legislation, under 
the Constitution, furnish any precedent 
for all this? 

"We make appropriations for the 
army, and we understand what we 
are doing, because it is "the army," 
that is to say, the army established 
by law. We make appropriations for 
the navy; they, too, are for "the 
navy," as provided for and establislied 
by law. We make appropriations for 
fortifications, but we say what fortifi- 
cations, and we assign to each its in- 
tended amount of the whole sum. 
This is the usual course of Congress on 
such subjects ; and why should it be de- 
parted from? Are we ready to say that 
the power of fixing the places for new 
fortifications, and the sum allotted to 



each; the power of ordering new ships 
to be built, and fixing the number of 
such new ships; the power of laying 
out money to raise men for the army ; 
in short, every power, great or small, 
respecting the military and naval ser- 
vice, shall be vested in the President, 
without specification of object or pur- 
pose, to the entire exclusion of the ex- 
ercise of all judgment on the part of 
Congress ? For one, I am not pre- 
pared. The honorable member from 
Ohio, near me, has said, that if the 
enemy had been on our shores he would 
not have agreed to this vote. And I 
say, if the proposition were now before 
us, and the guns of the enemy were 
pointed against the walls of the Capitol, 
I would not agree to it. 

The people of this country have an 
interest, a property, an inheritance, in 
this INSTRUMENT, against the value of 
which forty capitols do not weigh the 
twentieth part of one poor scruple. 
There can never be any necessity for 
such proceedings, but a feigned and 
false necessity; a mere idle and hollow 
pretence of necessity; least of all can it 
be said that any such necessity actually 
existed on the 3d of March. There 
was no enemy on our shores ; there were 
no guns pointed against the Capitol; we 
were in no war, nor was there a rea- 
sonable probability that we should have 
war, unless we made it ourselves. 

But whatever was the state of our 
foreign relations, is it not preposterous 
to say, that it was necessary for Con- 
gress to adopt this measure, and yet not 
necessary for the President to recom- 
mend it? Why should we thus run in 
advance of all our own duties, and leave 
the President completely shielded from 
his just responsibility? Why should 
there be nothing but trust and confi- 
dence on our side, and nothing but dis- 
cretion and power on his? 

Sir, if there be any philosophy in his- 
tory, if human blood still runs in hu- 
man veins, if man still conforms to the 
identity of his nature, the institutions 
which secure constitutional liberty can 
never stand long against this excessive 
personal confidence, against this devo- 



420 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



tion to men, in utter disregard both of 
principle and experience, which seem to 
me to be strongly characteristic of our 
times. This vote came to us, Sir, from 
the popular branch of the legislature; 
and that such a vote should come from 
such a branch of the legislature was 
amongst the circumstances which ex- 
cited in me the greatest surprise and the 
deepest concern. Certainly, Sir, cer- 
tainly I was not, on that account, the 
more inclined to concur. It was no 
argument M'ith me, that others seemed 
to be rushing, with such heedless, head- 
long trust, such impetuosity of confi- 
dence, into the arms of executive 
power. I held back the more strongly, 
and would hold back the longer. I see, 
or I think I see, — it is either a true 
vision of the future, revealed by the his- 
tory of the past, or, if it be an illusion, 
it is an illusion which appears to me in 
all the brightness and sunlight of broad 
noon, — that it is in this career of per- 
sonal confidence, along this beaten 
track of man-worship, marked at every 
stage by the fragments of other free 
governments, that our own system is 
making progress to its close. A per- 
sonal popularity, honorably earned at 
first by military achievements, and sus- 
tained now by party, by patronage, and 
by enthusiasm which looks for no ill, 
because it means no ill itself, seems to 
render men willing to gratify power, 
even before its demands are made, and 
to surfeit executive discretion, even in 
anticipation of its own appetite. 

If, Sir, on the 3d of March last, it 
had been the purpose of both houses of 
Congress to create a military dictator, 
what formula had been better suited to 
their purpose than this vote of the 
House? It is true, we might have 
given more money, if we had had it to 
give. We might have emptied the treas- 
ury ; but as to the form of the gift, we 
could not have bettered it. Home had 
no better models. When we give our 
money ybr any militari/ purpose ichateoer, 
what remains to be done? If we leave 
it with one man to decide, not only 
whether the military means of the 
country shall be used at all, but how 



they shall be used, and to what extent 
they shall be employed, what remains 
either for Congress or the people but to 
sit still and see how this dictatorial 
power will be exercised ? On the 3d of 
March, Sir, I had not forgotten, it was 
impossible that I should have forgotten, 
the recommendation in the message at 
the opening of that session, that power 
should be vested in the President to 
issue letters of marque and reprisal 
against France, at his discretion, in 
the recess of Congress. Happily, this 
power was not granted; but suppose it 
had been, what would then have been 
the true condition of this government? 
Why, Sir, this condition is very shortly 
described. The whole war power would 
have been in the hands of the Presi- 
dent; for no man can doubt a moment 
that reprisals would bring on immediate 
war; and the treasury, to the amount 
of this vote, in addition to all ordinary 
appropriations, would have been at his 
absolute disposal also. And all this in 
a time of peace. I beseech all true 
lovers of constitutional liberty to con- 
template tliis state of things, and tell 
me whether such be a truly republi- 
can administration of this government. 
Whether particular consequences had 
ensued or not, is such an accumulation 
of power in the hands of the executive 
according to the spirit of our system? 
Is it either wise or safe? Has it any 
warrant in the practice of former times? 
Or are gentlemen ready to establish the 
practice, as an example for the benefit 
of those who are to come after us? 

But, Sir, if the power to make re- 
prisals, and this money from the treas- 
ury, had both been granted, is there 
not great reason to believe that we 
should have been now actually at war? 
I think there is great reason to believe 
this. It will be said, I know, that if 
we had armed the President with this 
power of war, and supplied him with 
this grant of money, France would have 
taken it for such a proof of spirit on our 
part, that she would have paid the in- 
demnity without further delay. This is 
the old story, and the old plea. It is the 
excuse of every one who desires more 



ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 



421 



power than the Constitution or the laws 
give hiin, that if he had more power he 
could do more good. I'ower is alway.s 
claimed for the good of the people; and 
dictators are always made, when made 
at all, for the good of the people. For 
my part, Sir, I was content, and am 
content, to show France that we are 
prepared to maintain our just rights 
against her by the exertion of our 
power, when need be, according to the 
forms of our own Constitution ; that, if 
we make war, we will make it constitu- 
tionally ; and that we will trust all our in- 
terests, both in peace and war, to what 
the intelligence and the strength of the 
country may do for them, without break- 
ing down or endangering the fabric of 
our free institutions. 

Mr. President, it is the misfortune of 
the Senate to have differed with the ex- 
ecutive on many great questions during 
the last four or five years. I have re- 
gretted this state of things deeply, both 
on personal and on public accounts; 
but it has been unavoidable. It is no 
pleasant employment, it is no holiday 
business, to maintain opposition against 
power and against majorities, and to 
contend for stern and sturdy principle, 
against personal popularity, against a 
rushing and overwhelming confidence, 
that, by wave upon wave and cataract 



after cataract, seems to be bearing 
away and destroying whatsoever would 
withstand it. How much longer we 
may be able to support this opposition 
in any degree, or whether we can jxxssi- 
bly hold out till the public intelligence 
and the public patriotism shall be 
awakened to a due sense of the public 
danger, it is not for me to foretell. I 
shall not despair to the last, if, in the 
mean time, we are true to our own 
principles. Tf there be a steadfast ad- 
herence to these principles, both here 
and elsewhere, if, one and all, they 
continue the rule of our conduct in the 
Senate, and the rallying-point of those 
who think with us and support us out 
of the Senate, I am content to hope on 
and to struggle on. While it remains 
a contest for the preservation of the 
Constitution, for the security of public 
liberty, for the ascendency of principles 
over men, I am willing to bear my i)art 
of it. If we can maintain the Constitu- 
tion, if we can preserve this secui-ity 
for liberty, if we can thus give to true 
principle its just superiority over party, 
over persons, over names, our labors 
will be richly rewarded. If we fail in 
all this, they are already among the 
living who will write the history of this 
government, from its commencement to 
its close. 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED AT NIBLO'S SALOON, IN NEW YORK, ON THE 15th 

OF MARCH, 1837. 



Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citi- 
zens : — It -would be idle in me to af- 
fect to be indifferent to the circumstances 
under which I have now the honor of 
addressing you. 

I find myself in the commercial me- 
tropolis of the continent, in the midst 
of a vast assembly of intelligent men, 
drawn from all the classes, professions, 
and pursuits of life. 

And you have been pleased, Gentle- 
men, to meet me, in this imposing man- 
ner, and to offer me a warm and cordial 
welcome to your city. I thank you. I 
feel the full force and importance of this 
manifestation of your regard. In the 
highly-flattering resolutions which in- 
vited me here, in the respectability of 
this vast multitude of my fellow-citi- 
zens, and in the approbation and hearty 
good-will which you have here mani- 
fested, I feel cause for profound and 
grateful acknowledgment. 

To every individual of this meeting, 
therefore, I would now most respectfully 
make that acknowledgment; and with 
every one, as with hands joined in mu- 
tual greeting, I reciprocate friendly salu- 
tation, respect, and good wishes. 

Hut, Gentlemen, although I am well 
assured of your personal regard, I can- 
not fail to know, that the times, the 
political and commercial condition of 
things which exists among us, and an 
intelligent spirit, awakened to new ac- 
tivity and a new degree of anxiety, have 
mainly contributed to fill these avenues 
and crowd these halls. At a moment of 
difficulty, and of much alarm, you come 



here as Whigs of New York, to meet 
one whom you believe to be bound to 
you by common principles and common 
sentiments, and pursuing, with you, a 
common object. Gentlemen, I am proud 
to admit this community of our princi- 
ples, and this identity of our objects. 
You are for the Constitution of the 
country; so am I. You are for the 
Union of the States; so am I. You are 
for equal laws, for the equal rights of 
all men, for constitutional and just re- 
straints on power, for the substance and 
not the shadowy image only of popular 
institutions, for a government which has 
liberty for its spirit and soul, as well as 
in its forms; and so am I. You feel 
that if, in warm party times, the execu- 
tive power is in hands distinguished for 
boldness, for great success, for persever- 
ance, and other qualities which strike 
men's minds strongly, there is danger 
of derangement of the powers of gov- 
ernment, danger of a new division of 
those powers, in which the executive is 
likely to obtain the lion's part; and 
danger of a state of things in which the 
more popular branches of the govern- 
ment, instead of being guards and sen- 
tinels against any encroachments from 
the executive, seek, rather, support from 
its patronage, safety against the com- 
plaints of the people in its ample and 
all-protecting favor, and refuge in its 
power; and so I feel, and so I have felt 
for eight long and anxious years. 

You believe that a very efficient and 
powerful cause in the production of the 
evils which now fall on the industrious 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



423 



and commercial classes of the commu- 
nity, is the derangement of the cur- 
rency, the destruction of the exchanges, 
and the unnatural and unnecessary rnis- 
placement of the specie of the country, 
by unauthorized and illegal treasury or- 
ders. So do 1 believe. I predicted all 
this from the beginning, and from be- 
fore the beginning. I predicted it all, 
last spring, when that was attempted to 
be done by law which was afterwards 
done by executive authority; and from 
the moment of the exercise of that ex- 
ecutive authority to the present time, I 
liave both foreseen and seen the regular 
progress of things under it, from incon- 
venience and embarrassment, to pres- 
sure, loss of confidence, disorder, and 
bankruptcies. 

Gentlemen, I mean, on this occasion, 
to speak my sentiments freely on the 
great topics of the day. I have nothing 
to conceal, and shall therefore conceal 
nothing. In regard to political senti- 
ments, purposes, or objects, there is 
nothing in my heart which I am 
ashamed of; I shall throw it all open, 
therefore, to you, and to all men. [That 
is right, said some one in the crowd; 
let us have it, with no non-committal.] 
Yes, my friend, without non-committal 
or evasion, without barren generalities 
or empty phrase, without //'or but, with- 
out a single touch, in all I say, bearing 
the oracular character of an Inaugm-al, 
I shall, on this occasion, speak my mind 
plainly, freely, and independently, to 
men who are just as free to concur or 
not to concur in my sentiments, as I am 
to utter them. 1 think you are entitled 
to hear my opinions freely and frankly 
spoken ; but I freely acknowledge that you 
are still more clearly entitled to retain, 
and maintain, your own opinions, how- 
ever they may differ or agree with mine. 

It is true, Gentlemen, that I have 
contemplated tlie relinquishment of my 
seat in the Senate for the residue of the 
term, now two years, for which I was 
chosen. This resolution was not taken 
from disgust or discouragement, al- 
though some things have ceitainly hap- 
pened which might excite both those 
feelings. But in popular governments, 



men nmst not suffer themselves to be 
permanently disgusted by occasional ex- 
hibitions of political harlequinism, or 
deeply discouraged, although their ef- 
forts to awaken the people to what they 
deem the dangerous tendency of public 
measures be not crowned with immedi- 
ate success. It was altogether from 
other causes, and other considerations, 
that, after an uninterrupted service of 
fourteen or fifteen years, I naturally 
desired a respite. But those whose 
opinions I am bound to respect saw 
objections to a present withdrawal from 
Congress; and I have yielded my own 
strong desire to their convictions of 
what the public good requires. 

Gentlemen, in speaking here on the 
subjects which now so much interest the 
conmmnity, I wish in the outset to dis- 
claim all personal disrespect towards 
individuals. He ' whose character and 
fortune have exercised such a decisive 
influence on our politics for eight years, 
has now retired from public station. I 
pursue him with no personal reflections, 
no reproaches. Between him and my- 
self there has always existed a respect- 
ful personal intercourse. Moments have 
existed, indeed, critical and decisive 
upon the general success of his adminis- 
tration, in which he has been pleased to 
regard my aid as not altogether unim- 
portant. I now speak of him respect- 
fully, as a distinguished soldier, as one 
who, in that character, has done the 
state much service; as a man, too, of 
strong and decided character, of unsub- 
dued resolution and perseverance in 
whatever he undertakes. In speaking 
of his civil administration, I speak 
without censoriousness, or harsh impu- 
tation of motives; I wish him health 
and happiness in his retirement; but I 
must still speak as I think of his public 
measures, and of their general bearing 
and tendency, not only on the present 
interests of the country, but also on the 
well-being and security of the govern- 
ment itself. 

There are, however, some topics of a 
less urgent present ajiplication and im- 
portance, upon which I wish to say a few 

1 Presideut Jackson. 



424 



RECEPTION AT NEW YOEK. 



words, before I advert to those which 
are more immediately connected with 
the present distressed state of things. 

My learned and highly-valued friend 
(Mr. Ogden) who has addressed me in 
your behalf, has been kindly pleased 
to speak of my political career as being 
marked by a freedom from local inter- 
ests and prejudices, and a devotion to 
liberal and comprehensive views of pub- 
lic policy. 

I will not say that this compliment is 
deserved. I will only say, that I have 
earnestly endeavored to deserve it. Gen- 
tlemen, the general government, to the 
extent of its power, is national. It is 
not consolidated, it does not embrace all 
powers of government. On the con- 
trary, it is delegated, restrained, stiictly 
limited. 

But what powers it does possess, it 
possesses for the general, not for any 
partial or local good. It extends over a 
vast territory, embracing now six-and- 
twenty Stat -s, with interests various, 
but not irreconcilable, infinitely diver- 
sified, but capable of being all blended 
into political harmony. 

He, however, who would produce this 
harmony must survey the whole field, 
as if all parts were as interesting to 
himself as they are to others, and witli 
that generous, patriotic feeling, prompter 
and better than the mere dictates of cool 
reason, which leads him to embrace the 
whole with affectionate regard, as con- 
stituting, altogether, that object which 
he is so much bound to respect, to de- 
fend, and to love, — his country. We 
have around us, and more or less within 
the influence and protection of the gen- 
eral government, all the great interests 
of agriculture, navigation, commerce, 
manufactures, the fisheries, and the me- 
chanic arts. The duties of the govern- 
ment, then, certainly extend over all 
this territory, and embrace all these vast 
interests. We have a maritime frontier, 
a sea-coast of many thousand miles; and 
while no one doubts that it is the duty 
of government to defend this coast by 
suitable military preparations, there are 
those who yet suppose that the powers 
of government stop at this point; and 



that as to works of peace and works of 
improvement, they are beyond our con- 
stitutional limits. I have ever thought 
otherwise. Congress has a right, no 
doubt, to declare war, and to provide 
armies and navies; and it has necessa- 
rily the right to build fortifications and 
batteries, to protect the coast fi'om the 
effects of war. But Congress has au- 
thority also, and it is its duty, to regu- 
late commerce, and it has the whole 
power of collecting duties on imports 
and tonnage. It must have ports and 
harbors, and dock-yards also, for its 
navies. Very eai'ly in the history of the 
government, it was decided by Congress, 
on the report of a highly respectable 
committee, that the transfer by the 
States to Congress of the power of col- 
lecting tonnage and other duties, and 
the grant of the authority to regulate 
commerce, charged Congress, necessa- 
rily, witli the duty of maintaining such 
piers and wharves and lighthouses, and 
of making such improvements, as might 
have been expected to be done by the 
States, if they had retained the usual 
means, by retaining the power of col- 
lecting duties on imports. The States, 
it was admitted, had parted with this 
power; and the duty of protecting and 
facilitating commerce by these means 
had passed, along with this power, into 
other hands. I have never hesitated, 
therefore, when the state of the treasury 
would admit, to vote for reasonable 
appropriations, for breakwaters, light- 
houses, piers, harbors, and similai- pub- 
lic works, on any part of the whole 
Atlantic coast or the Gulf of Mexico, 
from Maine to Louisiana. 

But how stands the inland frontier ? 
How is it along the vast lakes and the 
mighty rivers of the North and West ? 
Do our constitutional rights and duties 
terminate where the water ceases to be 
salt ? or do they exist, in full vigor, on 
the shores of these inland seas ? I never 
could doubt about this; and yet. Gen- 
tlemen, I remember even to have parti- 
cipated in a warm debate, in the Senate, 
some years ago, upon the constitutional 
right of Congress to make an appropria- 
tion for a pier in the harbor of Buffalo. 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



425 



What! make a harbor at Buffalo, where 
Nature never made any, and where there- 
fore it was never intended any ever 
should be made I Take money from the 
peoj^le to run out piers from the sandy 
shores of Lake Erie, or deepen the chan- 
nels of her shallow rivers ! Where was 
the constitutional authority for this ? 
Where would such strides of power stop? 
How long would the States have any 
power at all left, if their territory might 
be ruthlessly invaded for such unhal- 
lowed purposes, or how long would the 
people have any money in their pockets, 
if the government of the United States 
might tax them, at pleasure, for such 
extravagant projects as these ? Piers, 
wharves, harbors, and breakwaters in 
the Lakes! These arguments, Gentle- 
men, however earnestly put forth here- 
tofore, do not strike us with great power, 
at the present day, if we stand on the 
shores of Lake Erie, and see hundreds 
of vessels, with valuable cargoes and 
thousands of valuable lives, moving on 
its waters, with few shelters from the 
storm, except what is furnished by the 
havens created, or made useful, by 
the aid of government. These great 
lakes, stretching away many thousands 
of miles, not in a straight line, but with 
turns and deflections, as if designed to 
reach, by water communication, the 
greatest possible number of important 
points through a region of vast extent, 
cannot but arrest the attention of any 
one who looks upon the map. They lie 
connected, but variously placed ; and in- 
terspersed, as if with studied variety of 
form and direction, over that part of the 
country. They were made for man , and 
admirably adapted for his use and con- 
venience. Looking, Gentlemen, over 
our whole country, comprehending in 
our survey the Atlantic coast, with its 
thick population, its advanced agricul- 
ture, its extended commerce, its manu- 
factures and mechanic arts, its varie- 
ties of communication, its wealth, and 
its general improvements; and looking, 
then, to the interior, to the immense 
tracts of fresh, fertile, and cheap lands, 
bounded by so many lakes, and watered 
by so many magnificent rivers, let me 



ask if such a map was ever before pre- 
sented to the eye of any statesman, as 
the theatre for the exercise of his wis- 
dom and patriotism ? And let me ask, 
too, if any man is fit to act a part, on siich 
a theatre, who does not comprehend the 
whole of it within the scope of his policy, 
and embrace it all as his counti-y V 

Again, Gentlemen, we are one in re- 
spect to the glorious Constitution under 
which we live. We are all united in 
the gTcat brotherhood of American lib- 
erty. Descending from the same ances- 
tors, bred in the same school, taught in 
infancy to imbibe the same general po- 
litical sentiments, Americans all, by 
birth, education, and principle, what but 
a narrow mind, or woful ignorance, or 
besotted selfishness, or prejudice ten 
times blinded, can lead any of us to re- 
gard the citizens of any part of the coun- 
try as strangers and aliens ? 

The solemn truth, moreover, is before 
us, that a common political fate attends 
us all. 

Under the present Constitution, wisely 
and conscientiously administered, all are 
safe, happy, and renowned. The meas- 
ure of our country's fame may fill all 
our breasts. It is fame enough for us 
all to partake in her glory, if we will 
carry her character onward to its true 
destiny. But if the system is broken, 
its fragments must fall alike on all. 
Not only the cause of American liberty, 
but the grand cause of liberty through- 
out the whole earth, depends, in a 
great measure, on upholding the Con- 
stitution and Union of these States. If 
shattered and destroyed, no matter by 
what cause, the peculiar and cherished 
idea of United American Liberty will be 
no more for ever. There may be free 
states, it is possible, when there shall be 
separate states. There may be many 
loose, and feeble, and hostile confedera- 
cies, where there is now one great and 
united confederacy. But the noble idea 
of United American Liberty, of our lib- 
erty, such as our fathers established it, 
will be extinguished for ever. Frag- 
ments and shattered columns of the edi- 
fice may be found remaining; and mel- 
ancholy and mournful ruins will Ihey be. 



426 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



The august temple itself will be pros- 
trate in the dust. Gentlemen, the citi- 
zens of this republic cannot sever their 
fortunes. A common fate awaits us. 
In the honor of upliolding, or in the dis- 
grace of undermiuiug the Constitution, 
we shall all necessarily partake. Let us 
then stand by the Constitution as it is, 
and by our country as it is, one, united, 
and entire ; let it be a truth engraven on 
our hearts, let it be borne on the flag 
under which we rally, in every exigency, 
that we have one Country, one Con- 
stitution, ONE Destiny. 

Gentlemen, of our interior adminis- 
tration, the public lands constitute a 
highly important part. This is a sub- 
ject of great interest, and it ought to at- 
tract nmch more attention than it has 
hitherto received, especially from the 
people of the Atlantic States. The pub- 
lic lands are public property. . They be- 
long to the people of all the States. A 
vast portion of them is composed of ter- 
ritories which were ceded by individual 
States to the United States, after the 
close of the Revolutionary war, and be- 
fore the adoption of the present Consti- 
tution. The history of these cessions, 
and the reasons for making them, are 
familiar to you. Some of the Old Thh-- 
teen possessed large tracts of unsettled 
lands within their chartered limits. The 
Revolution had established their title to 
these lands, and as the Revolution had 
been brought about by the common 
treasure and the common blood of all 
the Colonies, it was thought not unrea- 
sonable that these unsettled lands should 
be transferred to the United States, to 
pay the debt created by the war, and 
afterwards to remain as a fund for the 
use of all the States. This is the well- 
known origin of the title possessed by 
the United States to lands northwest of 
the River Ohio. 

By treaties with France and Spain, 
Louisiana and Florida, containing many 
millions of acres of public land, have 
been since acquired. The cost of these 
acquisitions was paid, of course, by the 
general government, and was thus a 
charge upon the whole people. The 



public lands, therefore, all and singu- 
lar, are national property; granted to 
the United States, purchased by the 
United States, paid for by all the peo- 
ple of the United States. 

The idea, that, when a new State is 
created, the public lands lying within 
her territory become the property of such 
new State in consequence of her sover- 
eignty, is too preposterous for serious 
refutation. Such notions have hereto- 
fore been advanced in Congress, but no- 
body has sustained them. They were 
rejected and abandoned, although one 
cannot say whether they may not be re- 
vived, in consequence of recent prop- 
ositions which have been made in the 
Senate. The new States are admitted 
on express conditions, recognizing, to 
the fullest extent, the right of the United 
States to the public lands within their 
borders; and it is no more reasonable 
to contend that some indefinite idea of 
State sovereignty overrides all these stip- 
ulations, and makes the lands the prop- 
erty of the States, against the provisions 
and conditions of their own constitu- I 
tion, and the Constitution of the United 
States, than it would be, that a similar 
doctrine entitled the State of New York 
to the money collected at the custom- J 
house in this city; since it is no more ' 
inconsistent with sovereignty that one 
government should hold lands, for the j 
purpose of sale, within the territory of 
another, than it is that it should lay and 
collect taxes and duties within such ter- 
ritory. Whatever extravagant preten- 
sions may have been set up heretofore, 
there was not, I suppose, an enlightened 
man in the whole West, who insisted on 
any such right in the States, when the 
proposition to cede the lands to the 
States was made, in the late session of 
Congi-ess. The public lands being, there- 
fore, the common property of all the 
people of all the States, I shall never 
consent to give them away to particular 
States, or to dispose of them otherwise 
than for the general good, and the gen- 
eral use of the whole country. 

I felt bound, therefore, on the occa- 
sion just alluded to, to resist at the 
threshold a proposition to cede the pub- 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



427 



lie lands to the States in wliich tliey lie, 
ou certain conditions. I very much re- 
gretted the introduction of such a meas- 
ure, as its eifect must be, I fear, only to 
agitate what was well settled, and to dis- 
turb that course of proceeding, in regard 
to the public lands, which forty years of 
experience have shown to be so wise, 
and so satisfactory in its operation, both 
to the people of the old States and to 
those of the new. 

But, Gentlemen, although the public 
lands are not to be given away, nor 
ceded to particular States, a very liberal 
policy in regard to them ought certainly 
to prevail. Such a policy has prevailed, 
and I have steadily supported it, and 
shall contuiue to support it so long as I 
may remain in public life. The main 
object, in regard to these lands, is un- 
doubtedly to settle them, so fast as the 
growth of our population, and its aug- 
mentation by emigration, may enable us 
to settle them. 

The lands, therefore, should be sold, 
at a low price; and, for one, I have 
never doubted the right or expediency 
of granting portions of the lands them- 
selves, or of making grants of money 
for objects of internal improvement con- 
nected with them. 

I have always supported liberal ap- 
propriations for the purpose of opening 
communications to and through these 
lands, by conmion roads, canals, and 
railroads; and where lands of little value 
have been long in market, and, on ac- 
count of their indifferent quality, are not 
likely to command a common price, I 
know no objection to a reduction of 
price, as to such lands, so that they may 
pass into private ownership. Nor do I 
feel any objections to removing those 
restraints which prevent the States from 
taxing the lands for five years after they 
are sold, liut while, in these and all 
other respects, I am not only reconciled 
to a liberal policy, but espouse it and 
support it, and have constantly done 
so, I still hold the national domain to 
be the general property of the country, 
confined to the care of Congress, and 
which Ct)ngress is solemnly bound to pro- 
tect and preserve for the common good. 



The benefit derived from the public 
lands, after all, is, and must be, in the 
greatest degree, enjoyed by those who 
buy them and settle upon them. The 
original price paid to government con- 
stitutes but a small part of their actual 
value. Their immediate rise in value, 
in the hands of the settler, gives him 
competence. He exercises a power of 
selection over a vast region of fertile ter- 
ritory, all on sale at the same price, and 
that price an exceedingly low one. Se- 
lection is no sooner made, cultivation is 
no sooner begun, and the first furrow 
turned, than he already finds himself a 
man of property. These are the advan- 
tages of Western emigrants and West- 
ern settlers; and they are such, certainly, 
as no country on earth ever before af- 
forded to her citizens. This opportu- 
nity of purchase and settlement, this 
certainty of enhanced value, these sure 
means of immediate competence and ul- 
timate wealth, — all these are the rights 
and the blessings of the people of the 
West, and they have my hearty wishes 
for their full and perfect enjoyment. 

I desire to see the public lands culti- 
vated and occupied. I desire the growth 
and prosperity of the West, and the full- 
est development of its' vast and extraor- 
dinary resources. I wish to bring it near 
to us, by every species of useful commu- 
nication. I see, not without admiration 
and amazement, but yet without envy or 
jealousy. States of recent origin already 
containing more people than Massacliu- 
setts. These people I know to be part of 
ourselves ; they have proceeded from the 
midst of us, and we may trust that they 
are not likely to separate themselves, in 
interest or in feeling, from their kindred, 
whom they have left on the farms and 
around the hearths of their common 
fatliers. 

A liberal policy, a sympathy with its 
interests, an enlightened and generous 
feeling of participation in its prosperity, 
are due to the West, and will be met, I 
doubt not, by a return of sentiments 
equally cordial and equally patriotic. 

Gentlemen, the general question of 
revenue is very much connected with 
this subject of the public lands, and I 



428 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



will therefore, in a very few words, ex- 
press my views on that point. 

The revenue involves, not only the 
supply of the treasury with money, but 
the question of protection to manufac- 
tures. On these connected subjects, 
therefore. Gentlemen, as I have prom- 
ised to keep nothing back, I will state 
my opinions plainly, but very shortly. 

I am in favor of such a revenue as 
shall be equal to all the just and reason- 
able wants of the government; and I 
am decidedly opposed to all collection 
or accumulation of revenue beyond this 
point. An extravagant government ex- 
penditure, and unnecessary accunmla- 
tion in the ' treasury, are both, of all 
things, to be most studiously avoided. 

I am in favor of protecting American 
industry and labor, not only as employed 
in large manufactories, but also, and 
more especially, as employed in the va- 
rious mechanic arts, carried on by per- 
sons of small capitals, and living by the 
earnings of their own personal industry. 
Every city in the Union, and none more 
than this, would feel severely the conse- 
quences of departing from the ancient 
and continued policy of the government 
respecting this last branch of protec- 
tion. If duties were to be abolished on 
hats, boots, shoes, and other articles of 
leather, and on the articles fabricated 
of brass, tin, and iron, and on ready- 
made clothes, carriages, furniture, and 
many similar articles, thousands of per- 
sons would be immediately thrown out 
of employment in this city, and in other 
parts of the Union. Protection, in this 
I'espect, of our own labor against the 
cheaper, ill-paid, half-fed, and pauper 
labor of Europe, is, in my opinion, a 
duty which the country owes to its own 
citizens. I am, therefore, decidedly for 
pi'otecting our own industry and our 
own labor. 

In the next place. Gentlemen, I am 
of opinion, that, with no more than 
usual skill in the application of the 
well-tried principles of discriminating 
and specific duties, all the branches of 
national industry may be protected, 
without imposing such duties on im- 
ports as shall overcharge the treasury. 



And as to the revenues arising from 
the sales of the public lands, I am of 
opinion that they ought to be set apart 
for the use of the States. The States 
need the money. The government of 
the United States does not need it. 
Many of the States have contracted 
large debts for objects of internal im- 
provement, and others of them have 
important objects which they would 
wish to accomplish. The lands were 
originally granted for the use of the 
several States; and now that their pro- 
ceeds are not necessary for the purposes 
of the general government, lam of opin- 
ion that they should go to the States, 
and to the people of the States, upon an 
equal principle. Set apart, then, the 
proceeds of the public lands for the use 
of the States; supply the treasury from 
duties on imports ; apply to these duties 
a just and careful discrimination, in 
favor of articles produced at home by 
our own labor, and thus support, to 
a fair extent, our own manufactures. 
These, Gentlemen, appear to me to be 
the general outlines of that policy which 
the present condition of the country re- 
quires us to adopt. 

Gentlemen, proposing to express opin- 
ions on the principal subjects of interest 
at the present moment, it is impossible 
to overlook the delicate question which 
has arisen from events which have hap- 
pened in the late Mexican province of 
Texas. The independence of that prov- 
ince has now been recognized by the 
government of the United States. Con- 
gress gave the President the means, to 
be used when he saw fit, of opening a 
diplomatic intercourse with its govern- 
ment, and the late President imme- 
diately made use of those means. 

I saw no objection, under the circum- 
stances, to voting an appropriation to be 
used when the President should think the 
proper time had come; and he deemed, 
very promptly, it is true, that the time 
had already arrived. Certainly, Gentle- 
men, the history of Texas is not a little 
wonderful. A very few people, in a 
very shoi't time, have established a gov- 
ernment for themselves, against the au- 



i 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



429 



thority of the parent state; and this 
government, it is generally supposed, 
there is little probability, at the present 
moment, of the parent state being able 
to overturn. 

This government is, in form, a copy 
of our own. It is an American consti- 
tution, substantially after the great 
American model. We all, therefore, 
must wish it success; and there is no 
one who will more heartily lejoice than 
I shall, to see an independent com- 
munity, intelligent, industrious, and 
friendly towards us, springing up, and 
rising into happiness, distinction, and 
power, upon our own principles of lib- 
erty and government. 

But it cannot be disguised. Gentle- 
men, that a desire, or an intention, is 
already nuinifested to annex Texas to 
the United States. On a subject of 
such mighty magnitude as this, and at 
a moment when the public attention is 
drawn to it, I should feel myself want- 
ing in candor, if I did not express my 
opinion; since all must suppose that, on 
such a question, it is impossible that I 
should be without some opinion. 

I say then. Gentlemen, in all frank- 
ness, that I see objections, I think 
insurmountable objections, to the an- 
nexation of Texas to the United States. 
AV'hen the Constitution was formed, it 
is not probable that either its frainers 
or the people ever looked to the admis- 
sion of any States into the Union, ex- 
cept sucli as then already existed, and 
such as should be formed out of terri- 
tories then already belonging to the 
United States. Fifteen years after the 
adoption of the Constitution, howev(?r, 
tlie case of Louisiana arose. Louisiana 
was obtained by treaty with France, who 
had recently obtained it from Spain; 
but the object of this acquisition, cer- 
tainly, was not mere extension of terri- 
tory. Other great political interests 
were connected with it. Spain, while 
she possessed Louisiana, had held the 
mouths of the great rivers which rise in 
the Western States, and flow into the 
Gulf of Mexico. She had disjiuted our 
use of these rivers already, and with a- 
powerful nation in possession of these 



outlets to the sea, it is obvious that the 
commerce of all the West was in danger 
of perpetual vexation. The connnand 
of these rivers to the sea was, there- 
fore, the great object aimed at in the 
acquisition of Louisiana. But that ac- 
quisition necessarily brought territory 
along with it, and three States now ex- 
ist, formed out of that ancient province. 

A similar policy, and a similar neces- 
sity, though perhaps not entirely so ur- 
gent, led to the acquisition of Florida. 

Now, no such necessity, no such pol- 
icy, requires the annexation of Texas. 
The accession of Texas to our territory 
is not necessary to the full and comjjlete 
enjoyn)ent of all which we already pos- 
sess. Her case, therefore, stands upon 
a footing entirely different from that of 
Louisiana and Florida. There beinsr 
no necessity for extending the limits of 
the Union in that direction, we ought, 
I think, for numerous and powerful 
reasons, to be content with our present 
boundaries. 

(rentlemen, we all see that, by whom- 
soever possessed, Texas is likely to be a 
slave-holding country; and I frankly 
avow my entire unwillingness to do any 
thing that shall extend the slavery of 
the African race on this continent, or 
add other slave-holding States to the 
Union. When I say that I regard slav- 
ery in itself as a great moral, social, 
and political evil, 1 only use language 
which has been adopted by distinguished 
men, themselves citizens of slave-hulding 
States. I shall do nothing, therefore, 
to favor or encourage its further exten- 
sion. We have slavery already amongst 
us. The Constitution found it in the 
Union; it recognized it, and gave it sol- 
emn guaranties. To the full extent of 
these guaranties we are all bound, in 
honor, in justice, and by the Constitu- 
tion. All the stipulations contained in 
the Constitution in favor of the slave- 
holding States which are already in the 
Union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far 
as depends on me, shall be fullilled, in 
the fulness of their spirit and to the ex- 
actness of their letter. Slavery, as it 
exists in the States, is beyond the reach 
of Congress. It is a concern of the 



^ 



430 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



States themselves; they have never sub- 
mitted it to Congress, and Congress has 
no rightful power over it. I shall con- 
cur, therefore, in no act, no measure, 
no menace, no indication of purpose, 
which shall interfere or threaten to in- 
terfere with the exclusive authority of 
the several States over the subject of 
slavery as it exists within their respec- 
tive limits. All this appears to me to be 
matter of plain and imperative duty. 

But when we come to speak of admit- 
ting new States, the subject assumes an 
entirely different aspect. Our rights 
and our duties are then both different. 

The free States, and all the States, 
are then at liberty to accept or to reject. 
When it is proposed to bring new mem- 
bers into this political partnership, the 
old members have a right to say on 
what terms such new partners are to 
come in, and what they are to briiig 
along with them. In my opinion, the 
people of the United States will not 
consent to bring into the Union a new, 
vastly extensive, and slave-holding coun- 
try, lai'ge enough for half a dozen or 
a dozen States. In my opinion, they 
ought not to consent to it. Indeed, I 
am altogether at a loss to conceive what 
possible benefit any part of this country 
can expect to derive from such annexa- 
tion. Any benefit to any part is at 
least doubtful and uncertain ; the objec- 
tions are obvious, plain, and strong. 
On the general question of slavery, a 
great portion of the comnninity is al- 
ready strongly excited. The subject 
has not only attracted attention as a 
question of politics, but it has struck a 
far deeper-toned chord. It has arrested 
the religious feeling of the country; it 
has taken strong hold on the consciences 
of men. He is a rash man indeed, and 
little conversant with human nature, 
and especially has he a very erroneous 
estimate of the character of the people 
of this country, who supposes that a 
feeling of this kind is to be trifled with 
or despised. It will assuredly cause it- 
self to be rpspected. It may be rea- 
soned with, it may be made willing, I 
believe it is entirely willing, to fulfil all 
existing engagements and all existing 



duties, to uphold and defend the Con- 
stitution as it is established, with what- 
ever regrets about some provisions which 
it does actually contain. But to coerce 
it into silence, to endeavor to restrain 
its free expression, to seek to compress 
and confine it, warm as it is, and more 
heated as such endeavors would inevi- 
tably render it, — should this be at- 
tempted, I know nothing, even in the 
Constitution or in the Union itself, 
which would not be endangered by the 
explosion which might follow. 

I see, therefore, no political necessity 
for the annexation of Texas to the 
Union; no advantages to be derived 
from it; and objections to it of a 
strong, and, in my judgment, decisive 
character. 

I believe it to be for the interest and 
happiness of the whole Union to remain 
as it is, without diminution and with- 
out addition. 

Gentlemen, I pass to other subjects. 
The rapid advancement of the execu- 
tive authority is a topic which has al- 
ready been alluded to. 

I believe there is serious cause of 
alarm from this source. I believe the 
power of the executive has increased, is 
increasing, and ought now to be brought 
back within its ancient constitutional 
limits. I have nothing to do with the 
motives which have led to those acts, 
which I believe to have transcended the 
boundaries of the Constitution. Good 
motives may always be assumed, as bad 
motives may always be imputed. Good 
intentions will always be pleaded for 
every assumption of power; but they 
cannot justify it, even if we were sure 
that they existed. It is hardly too 
strong to say, that the Constitution 
was made to guard the people against 
the dangers of good intention, real or 
pretended. When bad intentions are 
boldly avowed, the people will promptly 
take care of themselves. On the other 
hand, they will always be asked why 
they should resist or question that exer- 
cise of power which is so fair in its 
object, so plausible and patriotic in ap- 
pearance, and which has the public good 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



431 



alone confessedly in view? Human be- 
ings, we may be assured, will generally 
exercise power when they can get it; 
and they will exercise it most undoubt- 
edly, in popular governments, under 
pretences of public safety or high public 
interest. It may be very possible that 
good intentions do really sometimes ex- 
ist when constitutional restraints are 
disregarded. There are men, in all 
ages, who mean to exercise power use- 
fully; but who mean to exercise it. 
They mean to govern well; but they 
mean to govern. They promise to be 
kind masters ; but they mean to be mas- 
ters. They think there need be but 
little restraint upon themselves. Their 
notion of the public interest is apt to be 
quite closely connected with their own 
exercise of authority. They may not, 
indeed, alwaj's understand their own 
motives. The love of power may sink 
too deep in their own hearts even for 
their own scrutiny, and may pass with 
themselves for mere patriotism and be- 
nevolence. 

A character has been drawn of a very 
eminent citizen of Massachusetts, of 
the last age, which, though I think it 
does not entirely belong to him, yet very 
well describes a certain class of public 
men. It was said of this distinguished 
son of Massachusetts, that in matters 
of politics and government he cherished 
the most kind and benevolent feelings 
towards the whole earth. He earnestly 
desired to see all nations well governed ; 
and to bring about this happy result, he 
wished that the United States might 
govern the rest of the world ; that INlas- 
sachusetts might govern the United 
States; that Boston might govern Mas- 
sachusetts; and as for himself, his own 
humble ambition would be satisfied by 
governing the little town of Boston. 

I do not intend. Gentlemen, to com- 
mit so unreasonable a trespass on your 
patience as to discuss all those cases in 
which I think executive power has been 
unreasonably extended. I shall only 
allude to some of them, and, as being 
earliest in the order of time, and hardly 
second to any other in importance, I 



mention the practice of removal from 
all offices, high and low, for opinion's 
sake, and on the avowed ground of giv- 
ing patronage to the President; that is 
to say, of giving him the power of in- 
fluencing men's political opinions and 
political conduct, by hopes and by fears 
addressed directly to their pecuniary in- 
terests. The great battle on this point 
was fought, and was lost, in the Senate 
of the United States, in the last session 
of Congress under Mr. Adams's admin- 
istration. After General Jackson was 
known to be elected, and before his term 
of office began, many important offices 
became vacant by the usual causes of 
death and resignation. Mr. Adams, of 
course, nominated persons to fill these 
vacant offices. But a majority of the 
Senate was composed of the friends of 
General Jackson ; and, instead of acting 
on these nominations, and filling the 
vacant offices with ordinary prompti- 
tude, the nominations were postponed 
to a day beyond the 4th of March, for 
the purpose, openly avowed, of giving 
the patronage of the appointments to 
the President who was then coming into 
office. When the new President entered 
on his office, he withdrew these nomina- 
tions, and sent in nominations of his 
own friends in their places. I was of 
opinion then, and am of opinion now, 
that that decision of the Senate went far 
to unfix the proper balance of the gov- 
ernment. It conferred on the President 
the power of rewards for i)arty pur- 
poses, or personal purposes, without 
limit or control. It sanctioned, mani- 
festly and plainly, that exercise of power 
which ^Ir. Madison had said would de- 
serve impeachment; and it completely 
defeated one great object, which we are 
told the framers of the Constitution 
contemplated, in the manner of forming 
the Senate; that is, that the Senate 
might be a body not changing with tlie 
election of a President, and therefore 
likely to be able to hold over him some 
check or restraint in regard to bringing 
his own friends and jiartisans into power 
with him, and tlius rewai'ding their ser- 
vices to liim at the public expense. 
The debates in the Senate, on these 



432 



RECErTION AT NEW YORK. 



questions, were long continued and ear- 
nest. They were of course in secret 
session, but the opinions of those mem- 
bers who opposed this course have all 
been proved true by the result. The 
contest was severe and ardent, as much 
so as any that I have ever partaken in ; 
and I have seen some service in that 
sort of warfare. 

Gentlemen, when I look back to that 
eventful moment, when I remember 
who those were who upheld this claim 
for executive power, with so much zeal 
and devotion, as well as with such great 
and splendid abilities, and when I look 
round now, and inquire what has be- 
come of these gentlemen, where tliey 
have found themselves at last, under the 
power which they thus helped to estab- 
lish, what has become now of all their 
respect, trust, confidence, and attach- 
ment, — how many of them, indeed, have 
not escaped from being broken and 
crushed under the weight of the wheels 
of that engine which they themselves 
set in motion, — I feel that an edifying 
lesson may be read by those who, in the 
freshness and fulness of party zeal, are 
ready to confer the most dangerous pow- 
er, in the hope that they and their friends 
may bask in its sunshine, while enemies 
only shall be withered by its frown. 

I will not go into the mention of 
names. I will give no enumeration of 
persons; but I ask you to turn your 
minds back, and recollect who the dis- 
tinguished men were who supported, in 
the Senate, General Jackson's adminis- 
tration for the first two years; and I 
will ask you what you suppose they 
think now of that power and that dis- 
cretion which they so freely confided to 
executive hands. What do they think 
of tlie whole career of that administra- 
tion, the commencement of which, and 
indeed the existence of which, owed so 
much to theii' own great exertions? 

In addition to the establishment of 
this power of unlimited and causeless 
removal, another doctrine has been put 
forth, moi'e vague, it is true, but alto- 
gether unconstitutional, and tending to 
like dangerous results. In some loose, 



indefinite, and unknown sense, the 
President has been called the representa- 
tive of the tvJiole American j^eople. He 
has called himself so repeatedly, and 
been so denominated by his friends a 
thousand times. Acts, for which no 
specific authority has been found either 
in the Constitution or the laws, have 
been justified on the ground that the 
President is the representative of the 
whole American people. Certainly, this 
is not constitutional language. Cer- 
tainly, the Constitution nowhere calls 
the President the universal repi-esenta- 
tive of the people. The constitutional 
representatives of the people are in the 
House of Representatives, exercising 
powers of legislation. The President is 
an executive officer, appointed in a par- 
ticular manner, and clothed with pre- 
scribed and limited powers. It may be 
thought to be of no great consequence, 
that the President should call himself, 
or that others should call him, the sole 
representative of all the people, although 
he has no such appellation or character 
in the Constitution. But, in these mat- 
ters, words are things. If he is the 
people's representative, and as such may 
exercise power, without any otlier grant, 
what is the limit to that power? And 
what may not an unlimited representa- 
tive of the people do? When the Consti- 
tution expressly creates representatives, 
as members of Congress, it regulates, 
defines, and limits their authority. But 
if the executive chief magistrate, merely 
because he is the executive chief magis- 
trate, may assume to himself another 
character, and call himself the repre- 
sentative of the whole people, what is to 
limit or restrain this representative pow- 
er in his hands? 

I fear. Gentlemen, that if these pre- 
tensions should be continued and justi- 
fied, we might have many instances of 
summary political logic, such as I once 
heard in the House of Representatives. 
A gentleman, not now living, wished 
very much to vote for the establishment , 
of a Bank of the United States, but he \ 
had always stoutly denied the constitu- 
tional power of Congress to create such 
a bank. The country, however, was in 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



433 



a state of great financial distress, from 
which such an institution, it was hoped, 
might help to extricate it; and this con- 
sideration led the worthy member to re- 
view his opinions with care and delib- 
eration. Happily, on such careful and 
deliberate review, he altered his former 
judgment. lie came, satisfactorily, to 
the conclusion that Congress might in- 
corporate a bank. The argument which 
brought his mind to this result was 
short, and so plain and obvious, that 
he wondered how he should so long liave 
overlooked it. The power, he said, to 
create a bank, was either given to Con- 
gress, or it was not given. Very well. 
If it was given. Congress of course could 
exercise it; if it was not given, the peo- 
ple still retained it, and in that case. 
Congress, as the representatives of the 
people, might, upon an emergency, make 
free to use it. 

Arguments and conclusions in sub- 
stance like these, Gentlemen, will not 
be wanting, if men of great popularity, 
commanding characters, sustained by 
powerful parties, and full of good inten- 
tions towards the public, may be permitted 
to call themselves the universal repre- 
sentatives of the i^eople. 

But, Gentlemen, it is the currency, 
the currency of the country, — it is this 
great subject, so interesting, so vital, to 
all classes of the community, which has 
been destined to feel the most violent 
assaults of executive power. The con- 
sequences are around us and upon us. 
Not unforeseen, not unforetold, here 
they come, bringing distress for the 
present, and fear and alarm for the 
future. If it be denied that the pres- 
ent condition of things has arisen from 
the President's iutei-ference with the 
revenue, the first answer is, that, when 
he did interfere, just such consequences 
were predicted. It was then said, and 
repeated, and jiressed ujjon the public 
attention, that that interference must 
necessarily produce derangement, em- 
barrassment, loss of confidence, and 
commercial distress. I pray you, Gen- 
tlemen, to recur to the debates of 18;52, 
183:3, and 1834, and then to decide 
whose opinions have proved to be cor- 



rect. When the treasury experiment 
was first announced, who supjiorted, 
and who opposed it? Who warned the 
country against it? Who were they who 
endeavored to stay the violence of party, 
to arrest the hand of executive author- 
ity, and to convince the people that this 
experiment was delusive; that its object 
was merely to increase executive power, 
and that its effect, sooner or later, must 
be injurious and ruinous? Gentlemen, 
it is fair to bring the opinions of politi- 
cal men to the test of experience. It is 
just to judge of them by their measures, 
and their opposition to measures; and 
for myself, and those political friends 
with whom I have acted, on this subject 
of the currency, I am ready to abide the 
test. 

But before the subject of the curren- 
cy, and its present most embarrassing 
state, is discussed, I invite your atten- 
tion. Gentlemen, to the history of execu- 
tive proceedings connected with it. I 
propose to state to you a series of facts ; 
not to argue upon them, not to mystify 
them, nor to draw any unjust inference 
from them ; but merely to state the case, 
in the plainest manner, as I understand 
it. And I wish. Gentlemen, that, in 
order to be able to do this in the best 
and most convincing manner, I had the 
ability of my learned friend, (Mr. Og- 
den,) whom you have all so often heard, 
and who usually states his case in such 
a manner that, when stated, it is already 
very well argued. 

Let us see, Gentlemen, what the train 
of occurrences has been in regard to our 
revenue and finances; and when these 
occurrences are stated, I leave to every 
man the right to decide for himself 
whether our present difficulties have or 
have not arisen from attempts to extend 
the executive authority. In giving this 
detail, I shall be compelled to sj^eak of 
the late Bank of the United States; but 
I shall speak of it historically only. My 
opinion of its utility, and of the extraor- 
dinary ability and success with which its 
affairs were conducted for many years 
before the termination of its charter, is 
well known. I have often expressed it, 
and 1 have not altered it. But at pres- 



28 



434 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



ent I speak of the bank only as it makes 
a necessary part in the history of events 
which I wish now to recapitulate. 

Mr. Adams commenced his adminis- 
tration in Marclu, 1825. He had been 
elected by the House of Representatives, 
and began his career as President under 
a powerful opposition. From the very 
first day, he was warmly, even violently, 
opposed in all his measures; and this 
opposition, as we all know, continued 
without abatement, either in force or 
asperity, through his whole term of four 
years. Gentlemen, I am not about to 
say whether this opposition was well or 
ill. founded, just or unjust. I only state 
the fact as connected with other facts. 
The Bank of the United States, during 
these four years of ]\Ir. Adams's admin- 
istration, was in full operation. It was 
performing the fiscal duties enjoined on 
it by its charter ; it had established 
numerous offices, was maintaining a 
large circulation, and transacting a vast 
business in exchange. Its character, 
conduct, and manner of administra- 
tion were all well known to the whole 
country. 

Now there are two or three things 
worthy of especial notice. One is, that 
during the whole of this heated politi- 
cal controversy, from 1825 to 1829, the 
party which was endeavoring to produce 
a change of administration in the gen- 
eral government brought no charge of 
political interference against the Bank 
of the United States. If any thing, it 
was rather a favorite with that party 
generally. Certainly, the party, as a 
party, did not ascribe to it undue at- 
tachment to other parties, or to the then 
existing administration. Another im- 
portant fact is, that, during the whole 
of the same period, those who had es- 
poused the cause of General Jackson, 
and who sought to bring about a revo- 
lution under his name, did not propose 
the destruction of the bank, or its dis- 
continuance, as one of the objects which 
were to be accomplished by the intended 
revolution. They did not tell the coun- 
try that the bank was unconstitutional; 
they did not -declare it unnecessary; 
they did not propose to get along with- 



out it, when they should come into 
power themselves. If individuals en- 
tertained any such purposes, they kept 
them much to themselves. The party, 
as a party, avowed none such. A third 
fact, worthy of all notice, is, that dur- 
ing this period there v^as no complaint 
about the state of the currency, either 
by the country generally or by the party 
then in opposition. 

In March, 1829, General Jackson was 
inaugurated as President. He came 
into power on professions of reform. 
He announced reform of all abuses to 
be the great and leading object of his 
future administration; and in his in- 
augural address he pointed out the main 
subjects of this reform. But the bank 
M'as not one of them. It was not said 
by him that the bank was unconstitu- 
tional. It was not said that it was un- 
necessary or useless. It was not said 
that it had failed to do all that had been 
hoped or expected from it in regard to 
the currency. 

In March, 1829, then, the bank stood 
well, very well, with the new adminis- 
tration. It was regarded, so far as ap- 
pears, as entirely constitutional, free 
from political or party taint, and highly 
useful. It had as yet found no place in 
the catalogue of abuses to be reformed. 

But, Gentlemen, nine months wrought 
a wonderful change. New lights broke 
forth before these months had rolled 
away; and the President, in his mes- 
sage to Congress in December, 1829, 
held a very unaccustomed language and 
manifested very unexpected purposes. 

Although the bank had then five or 
six years of its charter unexpired, he 
yet called the attention of Congress 
very pointedly to the subject, and de- 
clared, — 

1. That the constitutionality of the 
bank was well doubted by many; 

2. That its utility or expediency was 
also well doubted; 

3. That all nmst admit that it had 
failed to establish or maintain a sound 
and uniform currency; and 

4. That the true bank for the use of 
the government of the United States 
would be a bank which should be 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



435 



founded on the revenues and credit of 

the government itself. 

These propositions appeared to me, 
?t the time, as very extraordinary, and 
the last one as very startling. A bank 
founded on the revenue and credit of 
the government, and managed and ad- 
ministered by the executive, was a con- 
ception which I liad supposed no man 
holding tlie chief executive power in 
his own hands would venture to put 
forth. 

But the question now is, what had 
wrought this great change of feeling and 
of purpose in regard to the bank. What 
events had occurred between March and 
December that should have caused the 
bank, so constitutional, so useful, so 
jieaceful, and so safe an institution, in 
the first of these months, to start up 
into the character of a monster, and 
become so horrid and dangerous, in the 
last? 

Gentlemen, let us see what the events 
were which had intervened. General 
Jackson was elected in December, 1828. 
His term was to begin in March, 1829. 
A session of Congress took .place, thei-e- 
fore, between his election and the com- 
mencement of his administration. 

Now, Gentlemen, the truth is, that 
during this session, and a little before 
the commencement of the new adminis- 
tration, a disposition was manifested 
by political men to interfere with the 
management of the bank. Members of 
Congress undertook to nominate or rec- 
ommend individuals as directors in the 
branches or offices of the bank. They 
were kind enough, sometimes, to make 
out whole lists, or tickets, and to send 
them to Philadelphia, containing the 
names of those whose appointments 
would be satisfactory to General Jack- 
son's friends. Portions of the corre- 
spondence on these subjects have been 
published in some of the voluminous 
reports and other documents connected 
with the bank, but perhaps have not 
been generally heeded or noticed. At 
first, the bank merely declined, as gently 
as possible, complying with these and 
similar requests. But like applications 
began to show themselves from many 



quarters, and a very marked case arose 
as early as June, 1829. Certain mem- 
bers of the Legislature of New Hamp- 
shire applied for a change in the 
presidency of the bianch which was 
established in that State. A member 
of the Senate of the United States wrote 
both to the president of the bank and 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, strong- 
ly recommending a change, and in his 
letter to the Secretary hinting very dis- 
tinctly at political considerations as the 
ground of the movement. Other officers 
in the service of the government took 
an interest in the matter, and urged a 
change; and the Secretai'y himself wrote 
to the bank, suggesting and recommend- 
ing it. The time had come, then, for 
the bank to take its position. It did 
take it; and, in my judgment, if it had 
not acted as it did act, not only would 
those who had the care of it have been 
most highly censurable, but a claim 
would have been yielded to, entirely in- 
consistent with a government of laws, 
and subversive of the very foundations 
of republicanism. 

A long correspondence between the 
Secretary of the Treasury and the presi- 
dent of the bank ensued. The directors 
determined that they would not surren- 
der either their rights or their duties to 
the control or supervision of the ex- 
ecutive government. They said they 
had never appointed directors of their 
branches on political grounds, and they 
would not remove them on such grounds. 
They had avoided politics. They had 
sought for men of business, capacity, 
fidelity, and experience in the manage- 
ment of pecuniary concerns. 1'hey owed 
duties, they said, to the government, 
which they meant to perform, faithfully 
and impartially, under all administra- 
tions ; and they owed duties to the stock- 
holders of the bank, which required 
them to disregard political considera- 
tions in their appointments. Tliis cor- 
respondence ran along into the fall of 
the year, and finally terminated in a 
stern and unanimous declaration, made 
by the directors, and transmitted to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, that the bank 
would continue to be independently 



436 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



administered, and that the directors 
once for all refused to submit to the su- 
pervision of the executive authority, in 
any of its branches, in the appointment 
of local directors and a^-ents. This res- 
olution decided the character of the 
future. Hostility towards the bank, 
thenceforward, became the settled policy 
of the government; and the message of 
December, 1829, was the clear announce- 
ment of that policy. If the bank had 
appointed those directors, thus recom- 
mended by members of Congress; if it 
had submitted all its appointments to 
the supervision of the treasury; if it 
had removed the president of the New 
Hampshire branch; if it had, in all 
things, showed itself a complying, po- 
litical, party machine, instead of an 
independent institution; — if it had 
done this, I leave all men to judge 
whether such an entire change of opin- 
ion, as to its constitutionality, its utility, 
and its good effects on the currency, 
would have happened between March 
and December. 

From the moment in which the bank 
asserted its independence of treasury 
control, and its elevation above mere 
party purposes, dovni to the end of its 
charter, and down even to the present 
day, it has been the subject to which the 
selectest phrases of party denunciation 
have been plentifully applied. 

But Congress manifested no disposi- 
tion to establish a treasury bank. On 
the contrary, it was satisfied, and so was 
the country, most unquestionably, with 
the bank then existing. In the sum- 
mer of 1832, Congress passed an act for 
continuing the charter of the bank, by 
strong majorities in both houses. In 
the House of Representatives, I think, 
two thirds of the members voted for the 
bill. The President gave it his nega- 
tive ; and as there were not two thirds of 
the Senate, though a large majority were 
for it, the bill failed to become a law. 

But it was not enough that a contin- 
uance of the charter of the bank was 
thus refused. It had the deposit of the 
public money, and this it was entitled 
to, by law, for the few years which yet 
remained of its chartered term. But 



this it was determined it should not 
continue to enjoy. At the commence- 
ment of the session of 1832-33, a grave 
and sober doubt was expressed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, in his offi- 
cial communication, whether the public 
moneys were safe in the custody of the 
bank! I confess, Gentlemen, when I 
look back to this suggestion, thus offi- 
cially made, so serious in its import, 
so unjust, if not well founded, and so 
greatly injurious to the credit of the 
bank, and injurious, indeed, to the credit 
of the whole country, I cannot but won- 
der that any man of intelligence and char- 
acter should have been willing to make 
it. I read in it, however, the first lines 
of another chapter. I saw an attempt 
was now to be made to remove the de- 
posits of the public money from the 
bank, and such an attempt was made 
that very session. But Congress was 
not to be prevailed upon to accomplish 
the end by its own authority. It was 
well ascertained that neither house would 
consent to it. The House of Represent- 
atives, indeed, at the heel of the ses- 
sion, decided against the proposition by 
a very large majority. 

The legislative authority having been . 
thus invoked, and invoked in vain, it j 
was resolved to stretch farther the long 
arm of executive power, and by that 
arm to reach and strike the victim. It 
so happened that I was in this city in 
May, 1833, and here learned, from a 
very authentic source, that the deposits 
would be removed by the President's 
order; and in June, as afterwards ap- 
peared, that order w^as given. 

Now it is obvious. Gentlemen, that 
thus far the changes in our financial and 
fiscal system were effected, not by Con- 
gress, but by the executive; not by law, 
but by the will and the power of the 
President. Congress would have con- 
tinued the charter of the bank ; but the 
President negatived the bill. Congress 
was of opinion that the deposits ought 
not to be removed; but the President 
removed them. Nor was this all. The 
public moneys being withdrawn from 
the custody which the law had provided, 
by executive power alone, that same 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



437 



power selected the places for their fu- 
ture keeping. I'articular banks, exist- 
ing under State charters, were cliosen. 
VVith these especial and particular ar- 
rangements were made, and the public 
moneys were deposited in tlu'ir vaults. 
Henceforward these selected banks were 
to operate on the revenue and credit of 
the government; and thus the original 
scheme, promulgated in the annual mes- 
sage of December, 1829, was substan- 
tially carried into effect. Here were 
banks chosen by tlie treasury; all the 
arrangements with them made by the 
treasury; a set of duties to be performed 
by them to the treasui-y prescribed ; and 
these banks were to hold the wlwle pro- 
ceeds of the public revenue. In all this, 
Congress had neither part nor lot. No 
law had caused the removal of the de- 
posits ; no law had authorized the selec- 
tion of deposit State banks ; no law had 
prescribed the terms on which the rev- 
enues should be placed in such banks. 
From the beginning of the chapter to 
tlie end, it was all executive edict. And 
now. Gentlemen, I ask if it be not most 
remarkable, that, in a country professing 
to be under a government of laws, such 
great and important changes in one of 
its most essential and vital interests 
should be brought about without any 
change of law, without any enactment 
of the legislature whatever ? Is such a 
power trusted to the executive of any 
government in which the executive is 
separated, by clear and well-defined 
lines, from the legislative department V 
The currency of the country stands on 
the same general ground as the com- 
merce of the country. Both are inti- 
mately connected, and both are subjects 
of legal, not of executive, regulation. 

It is worthy of notice, that the writers 
of the Federalist, in discussing the pow- 
ers which the Constitution conferred on 
the Fresident, made it matter of com- 
mendation, that it withdraws this sub- 
ject altogether from his grasp. "He 
can prescribe no rules," say they, " con- 
cerning the commerce or currency of the 
coimtry." And so we have been all 
taught to think, under all former ad- 
ministrations. But we have now seen 



that the President, and the President 
alone, does prescribe the rule concern- 
ing the currency. He makes it, and he 
alters it. He makes one rule for one 
branch of the revenue, and another rule 
for another. He makes one rule for the 
citizen of one State, and another for the 
citizen of another State. This, it is cer- 
tain, is one part of the treasury order of 
July last. 

But at last Congress interfered, and 
imdertook to regulate the deposits of 
the public moneys. It passed the law 
of July, 18<3G, placing tlie subject under 
legal control, restraining the power of 
the executive, subjecting the banks to 
liabilities and duties, on the one hand, 
and securing them against executive fa- 
voritism, on the other. But this law 
contained another important provision ; 
which was, that all the money in the 
treasury, beyond what was necessary for 
the cm-rent expenditures of the govern- 
ment, should be deposited with the 
States. This measm-e passed both houses 
by very unusual majorities, yet it hardly 
escaped a veto. It obtained only a cold 
assent, a slow, reluctant, and hesitating 
approval; and an early moment was 
seized to array against it a long list of 
objections. But the law passed. The 
money in the treasury beyond the sum 
of five millions was to go to the States. 
It has so gone, and the treasury for the 
present is relieved from the burden of a 
surplus. But now observe other coinci- 
dences. In the annual message of De- 
cember, 1835, the President quoted the 
fact of the rapidly increasing sale of the 
public lands as proof of high national 
prosperity. He alluded to that subject, 
certainly with much satisfaction, and 
apparently in something of the tone 
of exultation. There was nothing said 
about monopoly, not a word about spec- 
ulation, not a word about over-issues of 
paper, to pay for the lands. All was 
prosperous, all was full of evidence of a 
wise administration of government, all 
was joy and triumph. 

But the idea of a deposit or distribu- 
tion of the surplus money with the peo- 
ple suddenly damped this effervescing 
happiness. The color of the rose was 



438 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



gone, and every thing now looked gloomy 
and black. Now no more felicitation or 
congratulation, on account of the rajiid 
sales of the public lands; no more of 
this most decisive proof of national pros- 
perity and happiness. The executive 
Muse takes up a melancholy strain. She 
sings of monopolies, of speculation, of 
worthless paper, of loss both of land and 
money, of the multiplication of banks, 
and the danger of paper issues; and the 
end of the canto, the catastrophe, is, 
that lands shall no longer be sold but 
for gold and silver alone. The object 
of all this is clear enough. It was to 
diminish the income from the public 
lands. No desire for such a diminution 
had been manifested, so long as the 
money was supposed to be likely to re- 
main in the treasury. But a growing 
conviction that some other disposition 
must be made of the surplus, awakened 
attention to the means of preventing 
that surplus. 

Toward the close of the last session. 
Gentlemen, a proposition was brought 
forward in Congress for such an altera- 
tion of the law as should admit payment 
for public lands to be made in notliing 
but s'old and silver. The mover voted 
for his own proposition; but 1 do not 
recollect that any other member con- 
curred in the vote. The proposition 
■was rejected at once; but, as in other 
cases, that which Congress refused to do, 
the executive power did. Ten days after 
Congress adjourned, having had this mat- 
ter before it, and having refused to act 
upon it by making any alteration in the 
existing laws, a treasury order was is- 
sued, commanding that very thing to be 
done which Congress had been requested 
and had refused to do. Just as in the 
case of the removal of the deposits, the 
executive power acted in this case also 
against the known, well understood, and 
recently expressed will of the representa- 
tives of the people. There never has 
been a moment when the legislative will 
•would have sanctioned the object of that 
order; probably never a moment in 
which any twenty individual members 
of Congress would have concurred in it. 
The act was done without the assent of 



Congress, and against the well-known 
opinion of Congress. That act altered 
the law of the land, or purported to alter 
it, against the well-known will of the 
law-making power. 

For one, I confess I see no authority 
whatever in the Constitution, or in any 
law, for this treasury order. Those who 
have undertaken to maintain it have 
placed it on grounds, not only different, 
but inconsistent and contradictory. The 
reason which one gives, another rejects; 
one confutes what another argues. With 
one it is the joint resolution of 1816 
which gave the authority; with another, 
it is the law of 1820; with a third, it is 
the general superintending power of the 
President; and this last argument, since 
it resolves itself into mere power, with- 
out stopping to point out the sources of 
that power, is not only the shortest, but 
in truth the most just. He is the most 
sensible, as well as the most candid rea- 
soner, in my opinion, who places this 
treasury order on the ground of the pleas- 
ure of the executive, and stops there. I 
regard the joint resolution of 1816 as 
mandatory ; as prescribing a legal rule ; 
as putting this subject, in which all have 
so deep an interest, beyond the caprice, 
or the arbiti'ary pleasure, or the discre- 
tion, of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
I believe there is not the slightest legal 
authority, either in that officer or in the 
President, to make a distinction, and to 
say that paper may be received for debts 
at the custom-house, but that gold and 
silver only shall be received at the land 
offices. And now for the sequel. 

At the commencement of the last ses- 
sion, as you know, Gentlemen, a resolu- 
tion was brought forward in the Senate 
for annulling and abrogating this order, 
by Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, a gentleman of 
much intelligence, of sound ijrinciples, 
of vigorous and energetic character, 
whose loss from the service of the coun- 
tiy I regard as a public misfortune. The 
Whig members all supported this resolu- 
tion, and all the members, I believe, 
with the exception of some five or six, 
were very anxious in some way to get 
rid of the treasury order. But Mr. Ew- 
ing's resolution was too direct. It was 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK, 



439 



deemed a pointed and ungracious attack 
on executive policy. It must tlierefore 
be softened, modified, qualified, made to 
sound less harsh to the ears of men in 
power, and to assume a plausible, pol- 
ished, iuolTeusive character. It was ac- 
cordingly put into tlie plastic hands of 
friends of the executive to be moulded 
and fasliioned, so that it might have the 
effect of ridding the country of the ob- 
noxious order, and yet not appear to 
question executive infallibility. All this 
did not answer. The late President is 
not a man to be satisfied with soft 
words; and he saw in the measure, 
even as it passed the two houses, a sub- 
stantial repeal of the order. He is a 
man of boldness and decision ; and he 
respects boldness and decision in others. 
If you are his friend, he expects no 
flinching; and if you are his adversary, 
he respects you none the less for carry- 
ing your opposition to the full limits of 
honorable warfare. Gentlemen, I most 
sincerely regret the course of the Presi- 
dent in regard to this bill, and certainly 
most highly disapprove it. But I do 
not suffer the mortification of having 
attempted to disguise and garnish it, in 
order to make it acceptable, and of still 
finding it thrown back in my face. All 
that was obtained by this ingenious, 
diplomatic, and over-courteous niode of 
enacting a law, was a response from 
the President and the Attorney-General, 
that the bill in (piestion was obscure, ill 
penned, and not easy to be understood. 
The bill, therefore, was neither ap- 
proved nor negatived. If it had been 
approved, the treasury order would have 
been annulled, though in a clumsy and 
objectionable manner. If it had been 
negatived, and returned to Congress, no 
doubt it would have been passed by two 
thirds of both houses, and in that way 
have become a law, and abrogated the 
order. But it was not approved, it was 
not returned; it was retained. It had 
passed the Senate in season; it had been 
sent to the House in season ; but there it 
was suffered to lie so long without being 
called up, that it was comjiletely in the 
power of the President when it finally 
passed that body ; since he is not obliged 



to return bills which he does not ap- 
prove, if not presented to him ten days 
before the end of the session. The bill 
was lost, therefore, and the treasury 
order remains in force. Here again tlie 
representatives of the people, in liolh 
houses of Congress, by majorities almost 
unprecedented, endeavored to abolisli 
this obnoxious order. On hardly any 
subject, indeed, has opinion been so 
unanimous, either in or out of Congress. 
Yet tlie order remains. 

And now, Gentlemen, I ask you, and 
I ask all men who have not voluntarily 
surrendered all power and all right of 
thinking for themselves, whether, from 
18:]2 to the present moment, the execu- 
tive authority has not effectually super- 
seded the power of Congress, thwarted 
the will of the representatives of the 
people, and even of the people them- 
selves, and taken the whole subject of 
the currency into its own grasp? In 
1832, Congress desired to continue the 
bank of the United States, and a major- 
ity of the people desired it also ; but the 
President opposed it, and his will pre- 
vailed. In 1833, Congress refused to 
remove the deposits; the President re- 
solved upon it, however, and his will 
prevailed. Congress has never been 
willing to make a bank founded on the 
money and credit of the government, 
and administered, of course, by execu- 
tive hands ; but this was the President's 
object, and ho attained it, in a great 
measure, by tlie treasury selection of de- 
posit banks. In this particular, there- 
fore, to a great extent, his will prevailed. 
In 183(5, Congress refused to confine the 
receipts for public lands to gold and 
silver; but the President willed it, and 
his will prevailed. In 1837, both houses 
of Congress, by more than two thirds, 
passed a bill for restoring the former 
state of things by annulling the treasury 
order; but the President willed, notwith- 
standing, that the order should remain 
in force, and his will again prevail(;<l. 
I repeat the question, therefore, and I 
would put it earnestly to every intidli- 
gent man, to every lover of our constitu- 
tional lilierty, are we under the dominion 
of the law? or has the effectual govern- 



440 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



ment of the country, at least in all that 
regards the great interest of the cur- 
rency, been in a single hand? 

Gentlemen, I have done with the nar- 
rative of events and measures. I have 
done with the history of these successive 
steps, in the progress of executive power, 
towards a complete control over the rev- 
enue and the currency. The result is 
now all before us. These pretended re- 
forms, these extraordinary exercises of 
power from an extraordinary zeal for 
the good of the people, what have they 
brought us to? 

In 1829, the currency was declared to 
be neither sound nor uniform; a proposi- 
tion, in my judgment, altogether at vari- 
ance with the fact, because I do not be- 
lieve there ever was a country of equal 
extent, in which paper formed any part 
of the circulation, that possessed a cur- 
rency so sound, so uniform, so conven- 
ient, and so perfect in all respects, as the 
currency of this country, at the moment 
of the delivery of that message, in 1829. 

But how is it now? Where has the 
improvement brought it? What has re- 
form done? What has the great cry for 
hard money accomplished? Is the cur- 
rency uniform now? Is money in New 
Orleans now as good, or nearly so, as 
money in New York? Are exchanges at 
par, or only at the same low rates as in 
1829 and other years? Every one here 
knows that all the benefits of this ex- 
periment are but injury and oppression; 
all this reform, but aggravated distress. 

And as to the soundness of the cur- 
rency, how does that stand? Are the 
causes of alarm less now than in 1829? 
Ls there less bank paper in circulation? 
Is there less fear of a general catastro- 
phe? Is property more secure, or indus- 
try more certain of its reward? We all 
know, (ientlemen, that, during all this 
pretended warfare against all banks, 
banks have vastly increased. Millions 
upon millions of bank paper have been 
added to the circulation. Everywhere, 
and nowhere so much as where the 
present administration and its measures 
have been most zealously supported, 
banks have multiplied under State au- 



thority, since the decree was made that 
the Bank of the United States should be 
suffered to expire. Look at Mississippi, 
Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, and other 
States. Do we not see that banking 
capital and bank paper are enormously 
increasing? The opposition to banks, 
therefore, so much professed, whether it 
be real or whether it be but pretended, 
has not restrained either their number 
or their issues of paper. Both have 
vastly increased. 

And now a word or two. Gentlemen, 
ujjon thi^ hard-money scheme, and the 
fancies and the delusions to which it has 
given birth. Gentlemen, this is a sub- 
ject of delicacy, and one which it is ditfi- 
cult to treat with sufficient caution, in a 
popular and occasional address like this. 
I profess to be a bullionist, in the usual 
and accepted sense of that word. I am 
for a solid specie basis for our circula- 
tion, and for specie as a part of the cir- 
culation, so far as it may be practicable 
and convenient. I am for giving no 
value to paper, merely as paper. I 
abhor paper; that is to say, irredeema- 
ble paper, paper that may not be con- 
verted into gold or silver at the will of 
the holder. But while I hold to all this, 
I believe, also, that an exclusive gold 
and silver circulation is an utter impos- 
sibility in the present state of this coun- 
try and of the world. We shall none of 
us ever see it; and it is credulity and 
folly, in my opmion, to act under any 
such hope or expectation. The States 
will make banks, and these will issue 
paper; and the longer the government 
of the United States neglects its duty in 
regard to measures for regulating the cur- 
rency, the greater will be the amount of 
bank paper overspreading the country. 
Of this I entertain not a particle of doubt. 

While I thus hold to the absolute and 
indispensable necessity of gold and sil- 
ver, as the foundation of our circulation, 
I yet think nothing more absurd and pre- 
posterous, than unnatural and strained 
efforts to import specie. There is but 
so much specie in the world, and its 
amount cannot be greatly or suddenly 
increased. Indeed, there are reasons 
for supposing that its amount has re- 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



441 



cently diminished, by the quantity used 
in manufactures, and by tiie diminished 
products of the mines. The existing 
amount of specie, liowever, must sup- 
port the paper circulations, and the sys- 
tems of currency, not of the United 
States only, but of other nations also. 
One of its great uses is to pass from 
country to country, for the purpose of 
settling occasional balances in commer- 
cial transactions. It always finds its 
way, naturally and easily, to places 
where it is needed for these uses. But 
to take extraordinary pains to bring it 
where the course of trade does not bring 
it, where the state of debt and credit 
does not ree^uire it to be, and then to 
endeavor, by unnecessary and injurious 
regulations, treasury orders, accumula- 
tions at the mint, and other contriv- 
ances, there to retain it, is a course of 
jiolicy bordering, as it appears to me, on 
political insanity. It is boasted that we 
have seventy-five or eighty millions of 
specie now in the country. But what 
more senseless, what more absurd, than 
this boast, if there is a balance against 
us abroad, of which payment is desired 
sooner than remittances of our own 
products are likely to make that pay- 
ment? What more miserable than to 
boast of having that which is not ours, 
which belongs to others, and which the 
convenience of others, and our own con- 
venience also, require that they should 
possess? If Boston were in debt to 
New York, would it be wise in Boston, 
instead of paying its debt, to contrive 
all possible means of obtaining specie 
from the New York banks, and hoarding 
it at home? And yet this, as I think, 
would be precisely as sensible as the 
coui'se which the government of the 
United States at present pursues. We 
have, beyond all doubt, a great amount 
of specie in the country, but it does not 
answer its accustomed end, it does not 
perform its proper duty. It neither goes 
abroad to settle balances against us, and 
thereby quiet those who have demands 
upon us; nor is it so disposed of at home 
as to sustain the circulation to the extent 
which the circumstances of tiie times 
require. A great part of it is in the 



Western banks, in the land offices, on 
the roads through the wilderness, on the 
passages over the Lakes, from the land 
offices to the dejxisit banks, and from 
the deposit banks back to the land of- 
fices. Another portion is in the hands 
of buyers and sellers of specie; of men 
in the West, who sell land-olBce money 
to the new settlers for a high premium. 
Another portion, again, is kept in jiri- 
vate hands, to be used when circum- 
stances shall tempt to the purcha.se of 
lands. And, Gentlemen, I am inclined 
to think, so loud has been the cry about 
hard money, and so sweeping the de- 
nunciation of all paper, that private 
holding, or lioarding, prevails to some 
extent in different parts of the country. 
The.se eighty millions of specie, there- 
fore, really do us little good. We are 
weaker in our circulation, I have no 
doubt, our credit is feebler, money is 
scarcer with us, at this moment, than 
if twenty millions of this specie were 
shipped to Europe, and general confi- 
dence thereby restored. 

Gentlemen, I will not say that some 
degree of pressure might not have come 
upon us, if the treasury order had not 
issued. I will not say that there has 
not been over-trading, and over-produc- 
tion, and a too great expansion of bank 
circulation. This may all be so, and 
the last-mentioned evil, it was easy to 
foresee, was likely to happen when the 
United States discontiimed their own 
bank. But what I do say is, that, act- 
ing upon the state of things as it actu- 
ally existed, and is now actually existing, 
the treasury order has been, and now is, 
productive of great distress. It acts 
upon a state of things which gives ex- 
traordinary force to its stroke, and ex- 
traordinary point to its sting. It arrests 
specie, when the free use and circulation 
of specie are most important; it cripples 
the banks, at a moment when the banks 
more than ever need all their means. 
It makes the merchant unable to remit, 
when remittance is necessary for iiis own 
credit, and for the general adjustment 
of commercial balances. I am not now 
discussing the general (juestion, whether 
prices must not come down, and adjust 



442 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



themselves anew to the amount of bul- 
lion existing in Europe and America. 
I am dealing only witli the niea.sures of 
our own government on the subject of 
the currency, and I insist that these 
measures have been most unfortunate, 
and most ruinous in their effects on the 
ordinary means of our circulation at 
home, and on our ability of remittance 
abroad. 

Their effects, too, on domestic ex- 
changes, by deranging and misplacing 
the specie which is in the country, are 
most disastrous. Let him who has lent 
an ear to all these promises of a more 
uniform currency see how lie can now 
sell his draft on New Orleans or Mobile. 
Let the Northern manufacturers and 
mechanics, those who have sold the 
products of their labor to the South, and 
heretofore realized the prices with little 
loss of exchange, — let them try present 
facilities. Let them see what reform of 
the currency has done for them. Let 
them inquire whether, in this respect, 
their condition is better or worse than it 
was five or six years ago. 

Gentlemen, I hold this disturbance of 
the measure of value, and the means of 
payment and exchange, this derange- 
ment, and, if I may so say, this violation 
of the currency, to be one of the most un- 
pardonable of political faults. He who 
tampers with the currency robs labor 
of its bread. He panders, indeed, to 
greedy capital, which is keen-sighted, 
and may shift for itself; but he beggars 
labor, which is honest, unsuspecting, 
and too busy with the present to calcu- 
late for the future. The prosperity of 
the working classes lives, moves, and 
has its being in established credit, and 
a steady medium of payment. All sud- 
den changes destroy it. Honest indus- 
try never comes in for any part of the 
spoils in tiiat scramble which takes 
place when the currency of a country 
is disordered. Did wild schemes and 
projects ever benefit the industrious? 
Did irredeemable bank paper ever enrich 
the laborious? Did violent fluctuations 
ever do good to him who depends on his 
daily labor for his daily bread? Cer- 
tainly never. All these things may 



gratify greediness for sudden gain, or 
the rashness of daring speculation; but 
tliey can bring nothing but injury and 
distress to the homes of patient industry 
and honest labor. Who are they that 
profit by the present state of things? 
They are not the many, but the few. 
They are speculators, brokers, dealers 
in money, and lenders of money at ex- 
orbitant interest. Small capitalists are 
crushed, and, their means being dis- 
persed, as usual, in various parts of the 
country, and this miserable jjolicy hav- 
ing destroyed exchanges, they have no 
longer either money or credit. And all 
classes of labor partake, and umst par- 
take, in the same calamity. And what 
consolation for all this is it, that the 
public lands are paid for in specie? that, 
whatever embarrassment and distress 
pervade the country, the Western wil- 
derness is thickly sprinkled over with 
eagles and dollars? that gold goes weekly 
from Milwaukie and Chicago to Detroit, 
and back again from Detroit to Mil- 
waukie and Chicago, and performs simi- 
lar feats of egress and regress, in many 
other instances, in the Western States? 
It is remarkable enough, that, with all 
this sacrifice of general convenience, 
with all this sky-rending clamor for gov- 
ernment payments in specie, government, 
after all, never gets a dollar. So far as 
I know, the United States have not now 
a single specie dollar in the world. If 
they have, where is it? The gold and 
silver collected at the land offices is sent 
to the deposit banks ; it is there placed 
to the credit of the government, and 
thereby becomes the property of the 
bank. The whole revenue of the gov- 
ernment, therefore, after all, consists in 
mere bank credits; that very sort of se- 
curity which the friends of the adminis- 
tration have so much denounced. 

Remember, Gentlemen, in the midst 
of this deafening din against all banks, 
that, if it shall create such a panic as 
shall shut up the banks, it will shut 
up the treasury of the United States 
also. 

Gentlemen, I would not willingly be 
a prophet of ill. I most devoutly wish 
to see a better state of things; and I 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



443 



believe the repeal of the treasury order 
would tend very much to bring about 
that better state of things. And I am 
of opinion, that, sooner or later, the 
order will be repealed. I think it must 
be repealed. I think the East, West, 
North, and South will demand its re- 
peal. But, Gentlemen, I feel it my 
duty to say, that, if I should be disap- 
pointed in this expectation, I see no 
immediate relief to the distresses of the 
community. I greatly fear, even, that 
the worst is not yet.i I look for severer 
distresses; for extreme difficulties in 
exchange, for far greater inconveniences 
in remittance, and for a sudden fall in 
prices. Our condition is one which is 
not to be tampered with, and the repeal 
of the treasury order, being something 
which government can do, and which 
will do good, the public voice is right in 
demanding that repeal. It is true, if 
repealed now, the relief will come late. 
Nevertheless its repeal or abrogation is 
a thing to be insisted on, and pursued, 
till it shall be accomplished. This ex- 
ecutive control over the currency, this 
power of discriminating, by treasury 
order, between one man's debt and an- 
other man's debt, is a thing not to be 
endured in a free country; and it should 
be the constant, persisting demand of 
all true Whigs, " Rescind the illegal 
treasury order, restore the rule of the 
law, place all branches of the revenue 
on the same grounds, make men's rights 
equal, and leave the government of the 
country where the Constitution leaves 
it, in the hands of the representatives of 
the people in Congress." This point 
should never be surrendered or compro- 
mised. Whatever is established, let it 

1 On the 10th of June following the delivery 
of this speech, all the banks in the citj- of New 
York, by common consent, suspended the pay- 
ment of their note.s in specie. On the ne.xt day, 
the same step was taken by the banks of Bos- 
ton and the vicinity, and the example was fol- 
lowed by all the banks south of New York, as 
they received intellijjence of the suspension of 
specie payments in that city. On the 15th of 
.Tune, (just three months from the day this 
speech was delivered,) President Van Buren 
issued his proclamation calliu^C an extra ses- 
sion of Congress for the lirst Monday of Sep- 
tember. 



be equal, and let it be legal. Let men 
know, to-day, what money may be re- 
quired of them to-morrow. Let the rule 
be open and public, on the pages of the 
statute-book, not a secret, in the execu- 
tive breast. 

Gentlemen, in the session which has 
now just closed, I have done my utmost 
to effect a direct and immediate repeal 
of the treasury order. 

I have voted for a bill anticipating 
the payment of the French and Neapol- 
itan indemnities by an advance from 
the treasury. 

I have voted with great satisfaction 
for the restoration of duties on goods 
destroyed in the great conflagration in 
this city. 

I have voted for a deposit with the 
States of the surplus which may be in 
the treasury at the end of the year. Ail 
these measures have failed ; and it is for 
you, and for our fellow-citizens through- 
out the country, to decide whether the 
public interest would, or would not, have 
been promoted by their success. 

But I find. Gentlemen, that I am 
committing an unpardonable trespass on 
your indulgent patience. I will pursue 
these remarks no further. And yet I 
cannot persuade myself to take leava of 
you without reminding you, with the 
utmost deference and respect, of the im- 
portant part assigned to you in the 
political concerns of your country, and 
of the great influence of your opinions, 
your example, and your efforts upon the 
general prosperity and happiness. 

Whigs of New York ! Patriotic citi- 
zens of this great metropolis! Lovt rs 
of constitutional liberty, bound by in- 
terest and by affection to the institu- 
tions of your country, Americans in 
heart and in principle! — you are ready, 
I am sure, to fulfil all the duties im- 
posed upon you by your situation, and 
demanded of you by your country. 
You have a central position; your city 
is the point from which intelligence em- 
anates, and spreads in all directions over 
the whole land. Every hour carries re- 
ports of your sentiments and opinions 
to the verge of the Union. You cannot 
escape the responsibility which circuin- 



444 



RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 



stances have thrown upon you. You 
must live and act, on a broad and con- 
spicuous theatre, either for good or for 
evil to your country. You cannot shrink 
from your public duties; you cannot ob- 
scure yourselves, nor bury your talent. 
In the common welfare, in the common 
prosperity, in the common glory of 
Americans, you have a stake of value 
not to be calculated. Y^ou have an in- 
terest in the preservation of the Union, 
of the Constitution, and of the true 
principles of the government, which no 
man can estimate. You act for your- 
selves, and for the generations that are 
to come after you; and those who ages 
lience shall bear your names, and par- 
take your blood, will feel, in their po- 
litical and social condition, the conse- 
quences of the manner in which you 
discharge your political duties. 

Having fulfilled, then, on your part 
and on mine, though feebly and imper- 
fectly on mine, the offices of kindness 
and mutual regard required by this 
occasion, shall we not use it to a higher 
and nobler purpose? Shall we not, by 



this friendly meeting, refresh our pa- 
triotism, rekindle our love of consti- 
tutional liberty, and strengthen our 
resolutions of public duty? Shall we 
not, in all honesty and sincerity, with 
pure and disinterested love of country, 
as Americans, looking back to the re- 
nown of our ancestors, and looking for- 
ward to the interests of our posterity, 
here, to-night, pledge our mutual faith 
to hold on to the last to our professed 
principles, to the doctrines of true lib- 
erty, and to the Constitution of the 
country, let who will prove true, or who 
will prove recreant? Whigs of New 
Y'ork! I meet you in advance, and give 
you my pledge for my own performance 
of these duties, without qualification 
and without reserve. Whether in pub- 
lic life or in private life, in the Capi- 
tol or at home, I mean never to desert 
them. I mean never to forget that I 
have a country, to which I am bound by 
a thousand ties ; and the stone which is 
to lie on the ground that shall cover me, 
shall not bear the name of a son ungrate- 
ful to his native land. 



SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



REMARKS MADE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE IOth 
OF JANUARY, 1838, UPON A RESOLUTION MOVED 15Y MR. CLAY AS A 
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MU. CALHOUN ON THE 
SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



[On the 27th of December, 1837, a series 
of resolutions was moved in the Senate by 
Mr. Calhoun, on the subject of slavery. 
The fifth of the series was expressed in tlie 
following terms : — 

"Resolved, That the intermeddling of 
any State, or States, or their citizens, to 
abolish slavery in this District, or any of 
the Territories, on the ground, or under tlie 
pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the 
passage of any act or measure of Congress 
with that view, would be a direct and dan- 
gerous attack on the institutions of all the 
slave-holding States." 

These resolutions were taken up for dis- 
cussion on several successive days. On tlie 
10th of January, 1838, Mr. Clay moved the 
following resolution, as a substitute for 
the fiftli of Mr. Calhoun's series: — 

" Resolved, That the interference, by 
the citizens of any of the States, with the 
view to the abolition of slavery in this Dis- 
trict, is endangering the rights and security 
of the people of the District; and that any 
act or measure of Congress, designed to 
abolish slavery in this District, would be a 
violation of the faith implied in the ces- 
sions by the States of Virginia and Mary- 
land, a just cause of alarm to the people of 
the slave-holding States, and have a direct 
and inevitable tendency to disturb and en- 
danger the Union." 

On the subject of this amendment, Mr. 
Webster addressed the Senate as fol- 
lows.] 

Mr. President, - 
in tliis resolution. I 
matter of fact, 



-I 

do 
or any 



cannot concur 

not know any 

ground of ar- 

affirmation of 



gunieiit, on which this 
plighted faith can be .sustained. I .see 
nothing by which Congress has tied up 
its hands, either directly or indirectly, 
so as to put its clear constitutional 



power beyond the exercise of its own 
di.scretion. I have carefully examined 
the acts of cession by the States, the 
act of Congress, the proceedings and 
history of the times, and I find noth- 
ing to lead nie to doubt that it was the 
intention of all parties to leave this, 
like other subjects belonging to legisla- 
tion for the ceded territory, entirely to 
tlie discretion and wisdom of Congress. 
The words of the Constitution are clear 
and plain. None could be clearer or 
plainer. Congress, by that instrument, 
has power to exercise exclusive jurisdic- 
tion over the ceded territory, in all cases 
whatsoever. The acts of cession con- 
tain no limitation, condition, or qualifi- 
cation whatever, except that, out of 
abundant caution, there is inserted a 
proviso that nothing in the acts con- 
tained shall be coiLstrued to vest in the 
United States any right of property in 
the soil, so as to affect the rights of 
individuals therein, otherwi.se than as 
such individuals might themselves trans- 
fer their right of soil to the United 
States. The acts of cession declare, 
that the tract of country " is for ever 
ceded and relinquisiied to Congress and 
to the government of the United States, 
in full and aKsolute right and exclusive 
jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons 
residing or to reside therein, pursuant 
to the tenor and effect of the eighth sec- 
tion of the first article of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States." 



V 



446 



SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



Now, that section, to which reference 
is thus expressly made in these deeds 
of cession, declares, that Congress shall 
have power " to exercise exclusive legis- 
lation, in all cases whatsoever, over such 
district, not exceeding ten miles square, 
as nuiy, by cession of particular States 
and the acceptance of Congress, become 
the seat of government of the United 
States." 

Nothing, therefore, as it seems to me, 
can be clearer, than that the States mak- 
ing the cession expected Congress to 
exercise over the District precisely that 
power, and neither more nor less, which 
the Constitution had conferred upon it. 
I do not know how the provision, or the 
intentit)n, either of the Constitution in 
granting the power, or of the States in 
making the cession, could be expressed 
in a maimer more absolutely free from 
all doubt or ambiguity. 

I see, therefore, nothing in the act of 
cession, and nothing in the Constitu- 
tion, and nothing in the history of this 
transaction, and nothing in any other 
transaction, implying any limitation 
upon the authority of Congress. 

If the assertion contained in this 
resolution be true, a very strange re- 
sult, as it seems to me, must follow. 
The resolution affirms that the faith of 
Congress is pledged, indefinitely. It 
makes no limitation of time or circum- 
stance. If tills be so, then it is an obli- 
gation that binds us for ever, as much 
as if it were one of the prohibitions of 
the Constitution itself. And at all times 
hereafter, even if, in the course of their 
history, availing themselves of events, 
or changing their views of policy, the 
States themselves should make provis- 
ion for the emancipation of their slaves, 
the existing state of things could not be 
changed, nevertheless, in this District. 
It does really seem to me, that, if this 
resolution, in its terms, be true, though 
slavery in every other part of the world 
may be abolished, yet in the metrop- 
olis of this great republic it is estab- 
lislied in perpetuity. This appears to 
me to be the result of the doctrine 
of plighted faith, as stated in the reso- 
lution. 



In reply to Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Webster 
said : — 

The words of the resolution speak for , 
themselves. They require no comment. \ 
They express an unlimited plighted 
faith. The honorable member will so 
see if he will look at those words. The 
gentleman asks whether those who made 
the cession could have expected that 
Congress would ever exercise such a 
power. To this I answer, that I see 
no reason to doubt that the parties to 
the cession were as willing to leave this 
as to leave other powers to the discre- 
tion of Congress. 1 see not the slight- 
est evidence of any especial fear, or any 
especial care or concern, on the part of 
the ceding States, in regard to this par- 
ticular part of the jurisdiction ceded to 
Congress. And I think I can ask, on 
the other side, a very important question 
for the consideration of the gentleman 
himself, and for that of the Senate and 
the country; and that is, Would Con- 
gress have accepted the cession with any 
such restraint upon its constitutional 
power, either express or understood to 
be implied y I think not. Looking back 
to the state of things then existing, and 
especially to what Congress had so re- 
cently done, when it accepted the ces- 
sion of the Northwestern Territory, I 
entertain no doubt whatever that Con- 
gress would have refused the cession al- 
together, if offered with any condition 
or understanding that its constitutional 
authority to exercise exclusive legisla- 
tion over the District in all cases what- 
soever should be abridged. 

The Senate will observe that I am 
speaking solely to the point of plighted 
faith. Upon other parts of the resolu- 
tion, and upon many other things con- 
nected with it, I have said nothing. I 
only resist the imposition of new obli- 
gations, or a new prohibition, not to be 
found, as I think, either in the Consti- 
tution or any act of Congress. I have 
said nothing on the expediency of aboli- 
tion, immediate or gradual, or the rea- 
sons which ought to weigh with Con- 
gress should that question be proposed. 
I can, however, well conceive what 
would, as I tliink, be a natural and 



SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



447 



fair mode of reasoning on such an oc- 
casion. 

When it is said, for instance, by way 
of argument, that Congress, although it 
liave the power, ought not to take a lead 
in the business of abolition, consider- 
ina: that the interest which the United 
States have in the whole subject is vastly 
It'ss than that which States have in it, I 
can understand the propriety and per- 
tinency of the observation. It is, as 
far as it goes, a pertinent and appro- 
priate argument, and I shall always be 
ready to give it the full weight belong- 
ing to it. When it is argued that, in 
a case so vital to the States, the States 
themselves should be allowed to main- 
tain their own policy, and that the gov- 
ernment of the United States ought not 
to do any thing which shall, directly or 
indirectly, shake or disturb that policy, 
this is a line of argument which I can 
understand, whatever weight I may be 
disposed to give to it; for I have always 
not only admitted, but insisted, that 
slavery within the States is a subject 
belonging absolutely and exclusively to 
the States themselves. 

But the present is not an attempt to 
establish any such com"se of reasoning 
as this. The attempt is to set up a 
pledge of the public faith, to do the same 
office that a constitutional prohibition in 
terms would do; that is, to set up a di- 
rect bar, precluding all exercise of the 
discretion of Congress over the subject. 
It has been often said, in this debate, 
and I believe it is true, that a decided 
majority of the Senate do believe that 
Cougi-ess has a clear constitutional 
j)Ower over slavery in this District, 
lint while this constitutional right is 
admitted, it is at the same moment at- 
tempted effectually to counteract, over- 
throw, and do away with it, by the affii'- 
mation of plighted faith, as asserted in 
the resolution before us. 

Now, I have already said I know of 
nothing to support this affirmation. 
Neither in the acts of cession, nor in the 
act of Congress accepting it, nor in any 
other document, history, publication, or 
transaction, do I know of a single fact 
or suggestion supporting this proposi- 



tion, or tending to support it. Nor lias 
any gentleman, so far as I know, pointed 
out, or attempted to point out, any such 
fact, document, transaction, or other 
evidence. All is left to the general and 
repeated statement, that such a condi- 
tion must have been intended by the 
States. Of all this I see no proof what- 
ever. I s(Mi no evidence of any ih'sire 
on the part of the States thus to limit 
the power of Congress, or thus to require 
a pledge .igainst its exercise. And, in- 
deed, if this were made out, the inten- 
tion of Congress, as well as that of the 
States, must be inquired into. Nothing 
short of a clear and numifost intention 
of both parties, proved by proper evi- 
dence, can amount to plighted faith. 
The expectation or intent of one party, 
founded on something not provided for 
nor hinted at in the transaction itself, 
cainiot plight the faith of the other 
party. 

In short, I am altogether unable to 
see any ground for supposing that either 
party to the cession had any mental 
reservation, any unexpressed expecta- 
tion, or relied on any implied, but un- 
mentioned and unsuggested pledge, 
whatever. By the Constitution, if a 
district should be ceded to it for the 
seat of government. Congress was to 
have a right, in express terms, to exer- 
cise exclusive legislation, in all cases 
whatsoever. The cession was made and 
accepted in pursuance of this power. 
Both ])arties knew well what they were 
doing. Both parties knew that by the 
cession the States surrendered all juris- 
diction, and Congress acquired all juris- 
diction; and this is the whole transac- 
tion. 

As to any provision in the acts of ces- 
sion stipulating for the security of prop- 
erty, there is none, excepting only wdiat 
I have already stated; the condition, 
namely, that no right of individuals to 
the soil should be construed to be trans- 
ferred, but only the jurisdiction. But, 
no doubt, all rights of property ought to 
be duly respected by Congress, and all 
other legislatures. 

And since the subject of compensa- 
tion to the owners of emancipated slaves 



448 



SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



has been referred to, I take occasion to 
say, that if Congress should think that 
a wise, just, and politic legislation for 
this District required it to make com- 
pensation for slaves emancipated here, 
it has the same constitutional author- 
ity to make such compensation as to 
make grants for roads and bridges, 
almshouses, penitentiaries, and other 
similar objects, in the District. A 
general and absolute power of legis- 
lation carries with it all the necessai-y 
and just incidents belonging to such 
legislation. 

Mr. Clay having made some remarks in 
reply, Mr. Webster rejoined : — 

The honorable member from Ken- 
tucky asks the Senate to suppose the 
opposite case; to suppose that the seat 
of government had been fixed in a 
free State, Pennsylvania, for exam- 
ple; and that Congress had attempted 
to establish slavery in a district over 
which, as here, it had thus exclusive 
legislation. He asks whether, in that 
cas'e, Congress could establish slavery in 
such a place. This mode of changing 
the question does not, I think, vary 
the argument; and I answer, at once, 
that, however improbable or improper 
such an act might be, yet, if the power 
were universal, absolute, and without 



restriction, it might tmquestionably be 
so exercised. No limitation being ex- 
pressed or intimated in the grant itself, 
or any other proceeding of the parties, 
none could be implied. 

And in the other cases, of forts, 
arsenals, and dock-yards, if Congress 
has exclusive and absolute legislative 
power, it must, of course, have the 
power, if it could be supposed to be 
guilty of such folly, whether proposed 
to be exercised in a district within a free 
State, to establish slavery, or in a dis- 
trict in a slave State, to abolish or regu- 
late it. If it be a district over which 
Congress has, as it has in this District, 
unlimited power of legislation, it seems 
to me that whatever would stay the exer- 
cise of this power, in either case, must 
be drawn from discretion, from reasons 
of justice and true policy, from those 
high considerations which ought to in- 
flvience Congi'ess in questions of such 
extreme delicacy and importance; and 
to all these considerations I am willing, 
and always shall be willing, I trust, to 
give full weight. But I cannot, in con- 
science, say that the power so clearly 
conferred on Congress by the Constitu- 
tion, as a power to be exercised, like 
others, at its own discretion, is imme- 
diately taken away again by an implied 
faith that it shall not be exercised at all. 



THE CREDIT SYSTEM AND THE LABOR OF 
THE UNITED STATES. 

FROM THE SECOND SPEECH ON THE SUB-TREASURY, DELIVERED IN THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 1838. 



Now, Mr. President, wliat I under- 
stand by the credit system is, that which 
thus connects labor and capital, by giv- 
ing; to labor the use of capital. In 
other words, intelligence, good charac- 
ter, and good morals bestow on those 
wlio have not capital a power, a trust, 
a confidence, which enables them to ob- 
tain it, and to employ it usefully for 
themselves and others. These active 
men of business build their hopes of suc- 
cess on their attentiveness, their econ- 
omy, and their integrity. A wider 
theatre for useful activity is under their 
feet, and around them, than was ever 
open to the young and enterprising gen- 
erations of men, on any other spot en- 
lightened by the sun. Before them is 
the ocean. Every thing in that direc- 
tion invites them to efforts of enterprise 
and industry in the pui'suits of commerce 
and the fisheries. Around them, on all 
hands, are thriving and prosperous man- 
ufactures, an improving agriculture, and 
the daily presentation of new objects 
of internal improvement; while behind 
them is almost half a continent of the 
richest land, at the cheapest prices, un- 
der healthful climates, and washed by 
the most magnificent rivers that on any 
part of the globe pay their homage to 
the sea. In the midst of all these glow- 
ing and glorious prospects, they are 
Tieither restrained by ignorance, nor 
smitten down by the penury of personal 
circumstances. They are not compelled 
to contemplate, in hopelessness and de- 



spair, all the advantages thus bestowed 
on their condition by Providence. Cap- 
ital they may have little or none, but 
CREDIT supplies its place; not as the 
refuge of the prodigal and the reckless ; 
not as gratifying present wants with the 
certainty of future absolute ruin; but as 
the genius of honorable trust and confi- 
dence; as the blessing voluntarily offered 
to good character and to good conduct; 
as the beneficent agent, whicli assists 
honesty and enterprise in obtaining com- 
fort and independence. 

Mr. President, take avpay this credit, 
and what remains? I do not ask what 
remains to the few, but to the many? 
Take away this system of credit, and 
then tell me what is left for labor and 
industry, but mere manual toil and 
daily drudgery? If we adopt a system 
that withdraws capital from active em- 
ployment, do we not diminish the rate 
of wages? If we curtail the general 
business of society, does not every labor- 
ing man find his condition grow daily 
worse? In the politics of the day. Sir, 
we hear much said about divorcing 
the government from the banks; but 
when we abolish credit, we shall di- 
vorce labor from capital; and depend 
upon it. Sir, when we divorce labor 
from capital, capital is hoarded, and 
labor starves. 

The declaration so often quoted, that 
"all who trade on borrowed capital 
ought to break," is the most aristocratic 
sentiment ever uttered in this country. 



29 



450 



THE CREDIT SYSTEM AND THE LABOR 



It is a sentiment which, if carried out 
by political arrangement, would con- 
demn the great majority of mankind to 
the perpetual condition of mere day- 
laborers. It tends to take away from 
them all that solace and hope which 
arise from possessing something which 
they can call their own. A man loves 
his own ; it is fit and natural that he 
should do so; and he will love his coun- 
try and its institutions, if he have some 
stake in that country, although it be but 
a very small part of the general mass of 
property. If it be but a cottage, an 
acre, a garden, its possession raises him, 
gives him self-respect, and strengthens 
his attachment to his native land. It is 
our happy condition, by the blessing of 
Providence, that almost every man of 
sound health, industrious habits, and 
good morals, can ordinarily attain, at 
least, to this degree of comfort and re- 
spectability; and it is a result devoutly 
to be wished, both for its individual and 
its general consequences. 

But even to this degree of acquisition 
that credit of which I have already said 
80 much is highly important, since its 
general effect is to raise the price of 
wages, and render industry productive. 
There is no condition so low, if it be 
attended with industry and economy, 
that it is not benefited by credit, as any 
one will find, if he will examine and 
follow out its operations. 

Sir, if there be any aristocrats in 
Massachusetts, the people are all aristo- 
crats ; because I do not believe there is 
on earth, in a highly civilized society, a 
greater equality in the condition of men 
than exists there. If there be a man in 
the State who maintains what is called 
an equipage, has servants in livery, or 
drives four horses in his coach, I am not 
acquainted with him. On the other 
hand, there are few who are not able to 
carry their wives and daughters to church 
in some decent conveyance. It is no 
matter of regret or sorrow to us that 
few are very rich; but it is our pride 
and glory that few are very poor. It is 
our still higlier pride, and our just boast, 
as I think, that all her citizens possess 



means of intelligence and education; 
and that, of all her productions, she 
reckons among the very chiefest those 
which spring from the culture of the 
mind and the heart. 

Mr. President, one of the most strik- 
ing characteristics of this age is the 
extraordinary progress which it has wit- 
nessed in popular knowledge. A new 
and powerful impulse has been acting 
in the social system of late, producing 
this effect in a most remarkable degree. 
In morals, in politics, in art, in litera- 
ture, there is a vast accession to the 
number of readers and to the number 
of proficients. The present state of 
popular knowledge is not the result of 
a slow and uniform progress, proceeding 
through a lapse of years, with the same 
regular degree of motion. It is evi- 
dently the result of some new causes, 
brought into powerful action, and pro- 
ducing their consequences rapidly and 
strikingly. What, Sir, are these caixses? 

This is not an occasion, Sir, for dis- 
cussing such a question at length ; allow 
me to say, however, that the improved 
state of popular knowledge is but the 
necessary result of the improved con- 
dition of the great mass of the people. 
Knowledge is not one of our merely 
physical wants. Life may be sustained 
without it. But, in order to live, men 
must be fed and clothed and sheltered ; 
and in a state of things in which one's 
whole labor can do no more than pro- 
cure clothes, food, and shelter, he can 
have no time nor means for mental 
improvement. Knowledge, therefore, is 
not attained, and cannot be attained, 
till there is some degree of respite from 
daily manual toil and never-ending 
drudgery. Whenever a less degree of 
labor will produce the absolute necessa- 
ries of life, then there come leisure and 
means both to teach and to learn. 

If this great and wonderful extension 
of popular knowledge be the result of an 
improved condition, it may, in the next 
place, well be asked. What are the causes 
which have thus suddenly produced that 
great improvement? How is it that the 
means of food, clothing, and shelter are 
now so much more cheaply and abun- 



OF THE UNITED STATES. 



451 



dantly procured than formerly? Sir, the 
main cause I take to be the progress of 
scientific art, or a new extension of the 
application of science to art. Thi.s it is 
which has so much distinguished the 
last half-century in Europe aiul in 
America; and its effects are everywhere 
visible, and especially among us. Man 
has found new allies and auxiliaries in 
the powers of nature and in the inven- 
tions of mechanism. 

The general doctrine of political econ- 
omy is, that wealth consists in whatever 
is useful or convenient to man, and that 
labor is the producing cause of all this 
wealth. This is very true. But, then, 
what is labor? In the sense of political 
writers, and in common language, it 
means human industry; in a philosophi- 
cal view, it may receive a nmch more 
comprehensive meaning. It is not, in 
that view, human toil only, the mere 
action of thews and muscles; but it is 
any active agency which, working upon 
the materials with which the world is 
supplied, brings forth products useful 
or convenient to man. The materials 
of wealth are in the earth, in the seas, 
and in their natural and unaided pro- 
ductions. Labor obtains these mate- 
rials, works upon them, and fashions 
them to human use. Now it has been 
the object of scientific art, or of the 
application of science to art, to increase 
this active agency, to augment its power, 
by creating millions of laboi-ers in the 
form of machines all but automatic, all 
to be diligently employed and kept at 
work by the force of natural powers. 
To this end these natural powei'S, prin- 
cipally those of steam and falling water, 
are subsidized and taken into human em- 
ployment. Spinning-machines, power- 
looms, and all the mechanical devices, 
acting, among other operatives, in the 
factories and workshops, are but so 
many laborers. They are usually de- 
nominated lahor-saviiig machines, but it 
would be more just to call them labor- 
doing machines. They are made to be 
active agents; to have motion, and to 
produce effect; and though without in- 
telligence, they are guided by laws of 
science, which are exact and perfect, 



and they produce results, therefore, in 
general, more accurate than the human 
liand is capable of producing. When 
we look upon one of these, we behold a 
mute fellow-laborer, of immense power, 
of mathematical exactness, and of ever- 
during and unwearied effort. And 
while he is thus a most skilful and pro- 
ductive laborer, he is a non-consumer, 
at least beyond the wants of his me- 
chanical being, lie is not clamorous 
for food, raiment, or shelter, and makes 
no demands for the expenses of educa- 
tion. The eating and drinking, the read- 
ing and writing, and the clothes-wearing 
world, are* benefited by the labors of 
these co-operatives, in the same way as 
if Providence had provided for their 
service millions of beings, like ourselves 
in external appearance, able to lal)or 
and to toil, and yet requiring little or 
nothing for their own consumption or 
subsistence ; or rather, as if Providence 
had created a race of giants, each of 
whom, demanding no more for his sup- 
port and consumption than a common 
laborer, should yet be able to perform 
the work of a hundred. 

Now, Sir, turn back to the Massachu- 
setts tables of production, and you will 
see that it is these automatic allies and 
co-operators, and these powers of nature, 
thus employed and placed under human 
direction, which have come, with such 
prodigious effect, to man's aid, in the 
great business of procuring the means 
of living, of comfort, and of wealth, and 
which have so swollen the products of 
her skilful industry. Look at these ta- 
bles once more. Sir, and you will see the 
effects of labor, united with and acting 
upon capital. Look yet again, and you 
will see that credit, mutual trust, prompt 
and punctual dealings, and commercial 
coididence, are all mixed up as indi.-*- 
pensable elements in the general sys- 
tem. 

I will ask you to look yet once more. 
Sir, and you will perceive that general 
competence, great equality in human 
condition, a degree of poptdar knowl- 
edge and intelligence nowhere surpassed, 
if anywhere equal li-d, the prevalence of 
good moral sentiment, and extraordi- 



452 



THE CREDIT SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES. 



nary general prosperity, are the result 
of the whole. Sir, I have done with 
Massachusetts. I do not praise the old 
" Bay State " of the Revolution; I only 
present her as she is. 

Mr. President, such is the state of 
things actually existing in the country, 
and of which I have now given you a 
sample. And yet there are persons who 
constantly clamor against this state of 
things. They call it aristocracy. They 
excite the poor to make war upon the 
rich, while in truth they know not who 
are either rich or poor. They complain 
of oppression, speculation, and the per- 
nicious influence of accumulated wealth. 
They cry out loudly against all banks 
and corporations, and all the means by 
which small capitals become united, in 
order to produce important and benefi- 
cial results. They carry on a mad hos- 
tility against all established institutions. 
They would choke up the fountains of 
industry, and dry all its streams. 

In a country of unbounded liberty, 
they clamor against oppression. In a 
country of perfect equality, they would 
move heaven and earth against privilege 
and monopoly. Li a country where prop- 



erty is more equally divided than any- 
where else, they rend the air with the 
shouting of agrarian doctrines. In a 
country where the wages of labor are 
high beyond all parallel, and where lands 
are cheap, and the means of living low, 
they would teach the laborer that he is 
but an oppressed slave. Sir, what can 
such men want? What do they mean? 
They can want nothing, Sir, but to en- 
joy the fruits of other men 's labor. They 
can mean nothing but disturbance and 
disorder, the diffusion of corrupt princi- 
ples, and the destruction of the moral 
sentiments and moral habits of society. 
A licentiousness of feeling and of action 
is sometimes produced by prosperity it- 
self. Men cannot always resist the temp- 
tation to which they are exposed by the 
very abundance of the bounties of Prov- 
idence, and the very happiness of their 
own condition; as the steed, full of the 
pasture, will sometimes throw himself 
against its enclosures, break away from 
its confinement, and, feeling now free 
from needless restraint, betake himself 
to the moors and barrens, where want, 
erelong, brings him to his senses, and 
starvation and death close his career. 



REMARKS ON THE POLITICAL COURSE OF 
MR. CALHOUN, IN 1838. 



FROM THE SAME SPEECH. 



Having had occasion, Mr. President, 
to speali of nullification and the nuUi- 
fiers, I beg leave to say that I have not 
done so for any purpose of reproach. 
Certainly, Sir, I see no possible connec- 
tion, myself, between their principles or 
opinions, and the support of this meas- 
ure.^ They, however, must speak for 
themselves. They may have intrusted 
the bearing of their standard, for aught 
1 know, to the hands of the honorable 
member from South Carolina; and I 
perceived last session what I perceive 
now, that in his opinion there is a con- 
nection between these projects of gov- 
ernment and the doctrines of nullifica- 
tion. I can only say. Sir, that it will 
be marvellous to me, if that banner, 
though it be said to be tattered and 
torn, shall yet be lowered in obeisance, 
and laid at the footstool of executive 
power. To the sustaining of that power, 
the passage of this bill is of the utmost 
importance. The administration will 
regard its success as being to them, what 
Cromwell said the battle of Worcester 
was to him, "a crowning mercy." 
Whether gentlemen, who have distin- 
guished themselves so much by their 
extreme jealousy of this government, 
shall now find it consistent with their 
principles to give their aid in effecting 
this consummation, remains to be seen. 

The next exposition of the honorable 
gentleman's sentiments and opinions is 
in his letter of the 3d of November. 

This letter, Sir, is a curiosity. As a 
1 The Sub-Treasury. 



paper describing political operations, and 
exhibiting political opinions, it is with- 
out a parallel. Its phrase is altogether 
military. It reads like a despatch, or a 
bulletin from head-quarters. It is full 
of attacks, assaults, and repulses. It 
recounts movements and counter-move- 
ments; speaks of occupying one posi- 
tion, falling back upon another, and 
advancing to a third; it has positions 
to cover enemies, and positions to hold 
allies in check. Meantime, the celerity 
of all these operations reminds one of 
the rapidity of the military actions of 
the king of Prussia, in the Seven Years' 
war. Yesterday, he was in the South, 
giving battle to the Austrian ; to-day he 
is in Saxony, or Silesia. Instantly he 
is found to have traversed the Elector- 
ate, and is facing the Russian and the 
Swede on his northern, frontier. If you 
look for his place on the map, before 
you find it he has quitted it. He is 
always marching, fljTng, falling back, 
wheeling, attacking, defending, surpris- 
ing; fighting everywhere, and fighting 
all the time. In one particular, how- 
ever, the campaigns described in this 
letter are conducted in a different man- 
ner from those of the great Frederick. 
I think we nowhere read, in the narra- 
tive of Frederick's achievements, of his 
taking a position to cover an enemy, 
or a position to hold an ally in check. 
These refinements in the science of tac- 
tics and of war are of more recent dis- 
covery. 

Mr. President, public men must cer- 



454 



REMARKS ON THE POLITICAL 



tainly be allowed to change their opin- 
ions, and their associations, whenever 
they see fit. No one doubts this. Men 
may have grown wiser; they may have 
attained to better and more correct views 
of great public subjects. It would be 
unfortunate, if there were any code which 
should oblige men, in public or private 
life, to adhere to opinions once enter- 
tained, in spite of experience and better 
knowledge, and against their own con- 
victions of their erroneous character. 
Nevertheless, Sir, it must be acknowl- 
edged, that what appears to be a sud- 
den, as well as a great change, naturally 
produces a shock. I confess that, for 
one, I was shocked when the honorable 
gentleman, at the last session, espoused 
this bill of the administration. And 
when I first read this letter of Novem- 
ber, and, in the short space of a column 
and a half, ran through such a succes- 
sion of political movements, all termi- 
nating in placing the honorable member 
in the ranks of our opponents, and en- 
titling him to take his seat, as he has 
done, among them, if not at their head, 
I confess I felt still greater surprise. 
All this seemed a good deal too abrupt. 
Sudden movements of the affections, 
whether personal or political, are a little 
out of nature. 

Several years ago. Sir, some of the 
wits of England wrote a mock play, in- 
tended to ridicule the unnatural and 
false feeling, the sentimentality of a cer- 
tain German school of literature. In 
this play, two strangers are brought 
together at an inn. While they are 
warming themselves at the fire, and be- 
fore their acquaintance is yet five min- 
utes old, one springs up and exclaims to 
the other, " A sudden thought strikes 
me! Let us swear an eternal friend- 
ship!" This affectionate offer was in- 
stantly accepted, and the friendship duly 
sworn, unchangeable and eternal ! Now, 
Sir, how long this eternal friendship 
lasted, or in what manner it ended, 
those who wish to know may learn by 
referring to the play. 

But it seems to me. Sir, that the hon- 
orable member has carried his political 
sentimentality a good deal higher than 



the flight of the German school; for he 
appears to have fallen suddenly in love, 
not with strangers, but with opponents. 
Here we all had been. Sir, contending 
against the progress of executive power, 
and more particularly, and most strenu- 
ously, against the projects and experi- 
ments of the administration upon the 
currency. The honorable member stood 
among us, not only as an associate, but 
as a leader. AVe thought we were mak- 
ing some headway. The people ap- 
peared to be coming to our support and 
our assistance. The country had been 
roused, every successive election weak- 
ening the strength of the adversary, and 
increasing our own. We were in this 
career of success carried strongly for- 
ward by the current of public opinion, 
and only needed to hear the cheering 
voice of the honorable member, 

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once 
more ! " 

and we should have prostrated for ever 
this anti-constitutional, anti-commercial, 
anti-republican, and anti-American pol- 
icy of the administration. But instead 
of these encouraging and animating ac- 
cents, behold! in the very crisis of our 
affairs, on the very eve of victory, the 
honorable member cries out to the ene- 
my, — not to us, his allies, but to the 
enemy: "Hollo! A sudden thought 
strikes me ! I abandon my allies ! Now 
I think of it, they have always been my 
oppressors! I abandon them, and now 
let you and me swear an eternal friend- 
ship!" Such a proposition, from such 
a quarter. Sir, was not likely to be long 
withstood. The other party was a little 
coy, but, upon the whole, nothing loath. 
After proper hesitation, and a little de- 
corous blushing, it owned the soft im- 
peachment, admitted an equally sudden 
sympathetic impulse on its own side; 
and, since few words are wanted where 
hearts are already known, the honorable 
gentleman takes his place among his 
new friends amidst greetings and caress- 
es, and is already enjoying the sweets 
of an eternal friendship. 

In this letter, Mr. President, the 
writer says, in substance, that he saw. 



COURSE OF MR. CALHOUN. 



455 



at the commencement of the last ses- 
sion, that affairs had reached the point 
when he and his friends, according to 
the course they should take, would reap 
the full harvest of their long and arduous 
struggle against the encroachments and 
abuses of the general government, or 
lose the fruits of all their labors. At 
that time, he says, State interposition 
(viz. Nullification) had overthrown the 
protective tariff and the American sys- 
tem, and put a stop to Congressional 
usurpation; tiiat he had previously been 
united with the National Republicans; 
but that, in joining such allies, he was 
not insensible to the embarrassment of 
his position ; that with them victory it- 
self was dangerous, and that therefore 
he had been waiting for events; that 
now (that is to say, in September last) 
the joint attacks of the allies had brought 
down executive power; that the admin- 
istration had become divested of power 
and influence, and that it was now clear 
that the combined attacks of the allied 
forces would utterly overthrow and de- 
molish it. All this he saw. But he 
saw, too, as he says, that in that case 
the victory would inure, not to him or 
his cause, but to his allies and their 
cause. I do not mean to say that he 
spoke of personal victories, or alluded 
to personal objects, at all. He spoke of 
his cause. 

He proceeds to say, then, that never 
was there before, and never, probably, 
will there be again, so fair an oppor- 
tunity for himself and his friends to 
carry out their own principles and policy, 
and to reap the fruits of their long and 
arduous struggle. These principles and 
this policy, Sir, be it remembered, 
he represents, all along, as identified 
with the principles and policy of nullifi- 
cation. And he makes use of this glo- 
rious opportunity by refusing to join his 
late allies in any further attack on those 
in power, and rallying anew the old 
State-rights party to hold in check 
their old opponents, the National Re- 
publican party. This, he says, would 
enable him to prevent the complete as- 
cendency of his allies, and to compel the 
Southern division of the administration 



party to occupy the ground of which he 
proposes to take possession, to wit, the 
ground of the old State-rights party. 
They will have, he says, no other alter- 
native. 

Mr. President, stripped of its military 
language, what is the amount of all 
this, but that, finding the administration 
weak, and likely to be overthrown, if 
the opposition continued with undimin- 
ished force, he went over to it, he joined 
it; intending to act, himself, upon nul- 
lification principles, and to compel the 
Southern members of the administra- 
tion to meet him on those principles ? — 
in otlier words, to make a nullification 
administration, and to take such part 
in it as should belong to him and his 
friends. He confesses, Sir, that in thus 
abandoning his allies, and taking a po- 
sition to cover those in power, he per- 
ceived a shock would be created which 
would require some degi-ee of resolution 
and firmness. In this he was right. A 
shock, Sir, has been created; yet there 
he is. 

This administration. Sir, is repre- 
sented as succeeding to the last, by an 
inheritance of principle. It professes 
to tread in the footsteps of its illustrious 
predecessor. It adopts, generally, the 
sentiments, principles, and opinions of 
General Jackson, proclamation and all; 
and yet, though he be the very prince 
of nullifiers, and but lately regarded as 
the chiefest of sinners, it receives the 
honorable gentleman with the utmost 
compl.acency. To all appearance, the 
delight is mutual; they find him an able 
leader, he finds them complying fol- 
lowers. But, Sir, in all this movement 
he understands himself. He means to 
go ahead, and to take them along. lie 
is in the engine-car; he controls the 
locomotive. His hand regulates the 
steam, to increase or retard the speed 
at his discretion. And as to the occu- 
pants of the passenger-cars, Sir, they 
are as happy a set of gentlemen as one 
might desire to see of a summer's day. 
They feel that they are in progress; they 
hope they shall not be run off the track ; 
and when they reacli the end of their 
journey, they desire to be thankful! 



k 



456 



REMARKS ON THE POLITICAL 



The arduous struggle is now all over. 
Its richest fruits are all reaped; nullifi- 
cation embraces the sub-treasuries, and 
oppression and usurpation will be heard 
of no more. 

On the broad surface of the country, 
Sir, there is a spot called " the Her- 
mitage." In that residence is an occu- 
pant very well known, and not a little 
remarkable both in person and charac- 
ter. Suppose, Sir, the occupant of the 
Hermitage were now to open that door, 
enter the Senate, walk forward, and 
look over the chamber to the seats on 
tlie other side. Be not frightened, gen- 
tlemen; it is but fancy's sketch. Sup- 
pose he should thus come in among us, 
Sir, and see into whose hands has fallen 
the chief support of that administra- 
tion, which was, in so great a degree, 
appointed by himself, and which he 
fondly relied on to maintain the prin- 
ciples of his own. If gentlemen were 
now to see his steady military step, his 
erect posture, his compressed lips, his 
firmly-knitted brow, and his eye full of 
fire, I cannot help thinking. Sir, they 
would all feel somewhat queer. There 
"w^ould be, I imagine, not a little awk- 
ward moving and shifting in their seats. 
They would expect soon to hear the roar 
of the lion, even if they did not feel his 
paw. 

Sir, the spirit of union is particularly 
liable to temptation and seduction in 
moments of peace and prosperity. In 
war, this spirit is strengthened by a 
sense of common danger, and by a thou- 
sand recollections of ancient efforts and 
ancient glory in a common cause. But 
in the calms of a long peace, and in the 
absence of all apparent causes of alarm, 
things near gain an ascendency over 
things remote. Local interests and feel- 
ings overshadow national sentiments. 
Our attention, our regard, and our at- 
tachment are every moment solicited to 
what touches us closest, and we feel less 
and less the attraction of a distant orb. 
Such tendencies we are bound by true 
patriotism and by our love of union to 
resist. This is our duty; and the mo- 
ment, in my judgment, has arrived, 



when that duty should be performed. 
We hear, every day, sentiments and ar- 
guments which would become a meeting 
of envoys, employed by separate govern- 
ments, more than they become the com- 
mon legislatui-e of a united country. 
Constant appeals are made to local in- 
terests, to geographical distinctions, and 
to the policy and the i:)ride of j^articular 
States. It would sometimes appear as 
if it were a settled purpose to convince 
the people that our Union is nothing 
but a jumble of different and discordant 
interests, which must, erelong, be all 
resolved into their original state of sep- 
arate existence ; as if, therefore, it was of 
no great value while it should last, and 
was not likely to last long. The process 
of disintegration begins by urging as a 
fact the existence of different interests. 
Sir, is not the end to which all this 
leads us obvious? Who does not see 
that, if convictions of this kind take 
possession of the public mind, our Un- 
ion can hereafter be nothing, while it 
remains, but a connection without har- 
mony; a bond without affection ; a thea- 
tre for the angry contests of local feelings, 
local objects, and local jealousies? Even 
while it continues to exist in name, it 
may by these means become nothing but 
the mere form of a united government. 
My children, and the childreu of those 
who sit around me, may meet, perhaps, 
in this chamber, in the next generation; 
but if tendencies now but too obvious be 
not checked, they will meet as strangers 
and aliens. Tliey will feel no sense of 
common interest or common country; 
they will cherish no common object of 
patriotic love. If the same Saxon lan- 
guage shall fall from their lijis, it may 
be the chief proof that they belong to 
the same nation. Its vital principle ex- 
hausted and gone, its power of doing 
good terminated, the Union itself, be- 
come productive only of strife and con- 
tention, must ultimately fall, dishonored 
and unlamented. 

The honorable member from Carolina 
himself habitually indulges in charges 
of xxsurpation and oppression against the 
government of his country. He daily 
denounces its important measures, in tlie 



COURSE OF MR. CALnOUN. 



457 



laiiguagii in wliich our Revolutionary 
fathers spoke of the oppressions of the 
mother country. Not merely against 
executive usurpation, either real or sup- 
po.sed, does he utter these sentiments, 
but against laws of Congress, laws passed 
by large majorities, laws sanctioned for 
a course of years bj' the people. These 
laws he proclaims, every hour, to be but 
a series of acts of oppression. lie speaks 
of them as if it were an admitted fact, 
tliat such is their true character. This 
is tlie language he utters, these are the 
sentiments he expresses, to the rising 
generation around him. Are they sen- 
timents and language which are likely 
to inspire our children with the love of 
union, to enlarge their patriotism, or to 
teach them, and to make them feel, that 
their destiny has made them common 
citizens of one great and glorious repub- 
lic? A principal object in his late polit- 
ical movements, the gentleman himself 
tells us, was to unite the entire South ; 
and against whom, or against what, 
does he wish to unite the entire South? 
Is not this the very essence of local feel- 
ing and local regard? Is it not the ac- 
knowledgment of a wish and object to 
create political strength by uniting polit- 
ical opinions geographically? While tlie 
gentleman thus wi.shes to unite the en- 
tire South, I pray to know. Sir, if he ex- 
pects me to turn toward the polar star, 
and, acting on the same principle, to 
utter a cry of Rally ! to the whole North? 
Heaven forbid ! To the day of my death, 
neither he nor others shall hear such a 
cry from me. 

Finally, the honorable member de- 
clares that he .shall now march off, un- 
der the banner of State rights ! March 
off from whom? March off from what? 
We have been contending for great prin- 
ciples We have been struggling to 
maintain the liberty and to restore the 
prosperity of the country; we have made 
these struggles here, in the national 
councils, with the old flag, the true 
American flag, the Eagle, and the Stars 
and Stripes, waving over the chamber 
in which we sit. He now tells us, how- 



ever, that he marches off under the State- 
rights banner! 

Let him go. I remain. I am where 
I ever have been, and over mean to be. 
Here, standing on tlie platform of the 
general Constitution, a platform broad 
enough and fiim enough to ujihold every 
interest of the whole country, I siiall 
still be found. Intrusted with some part 
in the administration of that Constitu- 
tion, I intend to act in its spirit, and in 
the spirit of those who framed it. Yes, 
Sir, I would act as if our fathers, who 
formed it for us and who bequeathed it 
to us, were looking on me; as if I could 
see their venerable forms bending down 
to behold us from the abodes above. I 
would act, too, as if the eye of posterity 
was gazing on me. 

Standing thus, as in the full gaze of 
our ancestors and our posteiity, hav- 
ing received tliis inheritance from the 
former, to be transmitted to the latter, 
and feeling that, if I am born for any 
good, in my day and generation, it is 
for the good of the whole country, no 
local policy or local feeling, no tempo- 
rary impulse, shall induce me to yield 
my foothold on the Constitution of the 
Union. I move off under no banner not 
known to the whole American people, 
and to their Constitution and laws. No, 
Sir; these walls, these columns, 

"shall fly 
From their firm base as soon as I." 

I came into public life. Sir, in the 
service of the United States. On that 
broad altar, my earliest, and all my pub- 
lic vows, have been made. I propo.se 
to serve no other master. So far as de- 
pends on any agency of mine, they shall 
continue united States; united in inter- 
est and in affection; united in every 
thing in regard to which the Constitu- 
tion has decreed their union; united in 
war, for the common defence, the com- 
mon renown, and the common glory; 
and united, compacted, knit firmly to- 
gether in peace, for the common pro.s- 
perity and luvppiness of ourselves and 
our children. 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
22d of march, 1838, IN ANSWER TO MR. CALHOUN. 



[On Thursday, the 22d of March, Mr. 
Calhoun spoke at length m answer to Mr. 
Webster's speech of the 12th of March. 

Wlien he had concluded, Mr. Webster 
immediately rose, and addressed the Sen- 
ate as follows.] 

Mr. President, — I came rather late 
to the Senate this morning, and, hap- 
pening to meet a friend on the Avenue, 
I was admonished to hasten my steps, 
as " the war was to be carried into 
Africa," and I was expected to be anni- 
hilated. I lost no time in following the 
advice. Sir, since it would be awkward 
for one to be annihilated without know- 
ing any thing about it. 

Well, Sir, the war has been carried 
into Africa. The honorable member 
has made an expedition into regions as 
remote from the subject of this debate 
as the orb of Jupiter from that of our 
earth. He has spoken of the tariff, of 
slavery, and of the late war. Of all this 
I do not complain. On the contrary, if 
it be his pleasure to allude to all or any 
of these topics, for any purpose what- 
ever, I am ready at all times to hear him. 
Sii', this cari'ying the war into Africa, 
which has become so common a phrase 
among us, is, indeed, imitating a great 
example ; but it is an example which is 
not always followed with success. In 
the first place, every man, though he be 
a man of talent and genius, is not a 
Scipio; and in the next place, as I rec- 
ollect this part of Roman and Cartha- 
ginian history, ^ the gentleman may be 



more accurate, but, as I recollect it, 
when Scipio resolved upon carrying the 
war into Africa, Hannibal was not at 
home. Now, Sir, I am very little like 
Hannibal, but I am at home; and when 
Scipio Africanus South-Caroliniensis 
brings the war into my territories, 1 
shall not leave their defence to Asdru- 
bal, nor Syphax, nor anybody else. I 
meet him on the shore, at his landing, 
and propose but one contest. 

"Concurritur; horse 
Momento cita mors venit, aut victoria laeta." 

Mr. President, I had made up my 
mind that, if the honorable gentleman 
should confine himself to a reply in the 
ordinary way, I would not say another 
syllable. But he has not done so. He 
has gone off into topics quite remote 
from all connection with revenue, com- 
merce, finance, or sub-treasuries, and 
invites to a discussion which, however 
uninteresting to the public at the pres- 
ent moment, is too personal to be de- 
clined by me. 

He says, Sir, that I undertook to com- 
pare my political character and conduct 
with his. Far from it. I attempted no 
such thing. I compared the gentle- 
man's political opinions at different 
times with one another, and expressed 
decided opposition to those which he 
now holds. And I did, certainly, ad- 
vert to the general tone and drift of the 
gentleman's sentiments and expressions 
for some years past, in their bearing on 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



459 



the Union, with such remarks as I 
thought they deserved ; but I instituted 
no comparison between hiin and myself. 
He may institute one if lie pleases, and 
when he pleases. Seeking nothing of 
this kind, 1 avoid nothing. Let it be 
remembered, that the gentleman began 
the debate, by attempting to exhibit a 
contrast between the present opinions 
and conduct of my friends and myself, 
and our i-ecent opinions and conduct. 
Here is the first charge of inconsist- 
ency; let the public judge whether 
lie has made it good. He says. Sir, 
that on several questions I have taken 
different sides, at different times; let 
liim show it. If he shows any change 
(if opinion, I shall be called on to give 
a reason, and to account for it. I leave 
it to the country to say whether, as yet, 
lie has shown any such thing. 

But, Sir, before attempting that, he 
lias something else to say. He had 
jirepared, it seems, to draw comparisons 
himself. He had intended to say some- 
thing, if time had allowed, upon our 
respective opinions and conduct in re- 
gard to the war. If time had allowed! 
Sir, time does allow, time must al- 
low. A general remark of that kind 
ought not to be, cannot be, left to pro- 
duce its effect, when that effect is ob- 
viously intended to be unfavorable. 
Why did the gentleman allude to my 
votes or my opinions respecting the war 
at all, unless he had something to say? 
Does he wish to leave an undefined im- 
pression that something was done, or 
something said, by me, not now capable 
of defence or justification? something 
not reconcilable with true patriotism? 
He means that, or nothing. And now, 
Sir, let him bring the matter forth; let 
him take the responsibility of the ac- 
cusation; let him state his facts. I am 
here to answer; I am here, this day, to 
answer. Now is the time, and now the 
hour. I think we read. Sir, that one of 
the good spirits would not bring against 
the Arch-enemy of mankind a railing 
accusation; and what is railing but gen- 
eral reproach, an imputation without 
fact, time, or circumstance? Sir, I call 
for particulars. The gentleman knows 



my whole conduct well ; indeed, the 
journals show it all, from the moment I 
came into Congress till the peace. If I 
have done, then. Sir, any thing unpatri- 
otic, any thing which, as far as love to 
country goes, will not bear comi)arison 
with his or any man's conduct, let it 
now be stated. Give me the fact, the 
time, the manner. He speaks of the 
war; that which we call the late war, 
though it is now twenty-five years since 
it terminated. He would leave an im- 
pression that I opposed it. How? I 
was not in Congress when war was de- 
clared, nor in public life anywhere. I 
was pursuing my profession, keeping 
company with judges and jurors, and 
plaintiffs and defendants. If I had 
been in Congress, and had enjoyed the 
benefit of hearing the honorable gentle- 
man's speeches, for aught I can say, I 
might have concurred with him. But 
I was not in public life. I never had 
been, for a single hour; and was in no 
situation, therefore, to oppose or to sup- 
port the declaration of war. I am 
speaking to the fact. Sir; and if the 
gentleman has any fact, let us know it. 
Well, Sir, I came into Congress dur- 
ing the war. I found it waged, and 
raging. And what did I do here to op- 
pose it? Look to the journals. Let the 
honorable gentleman tax his memory. 
Bring up any thing, if there be any 
thing to bring up, not showing error of 
opinion, but showing want of loyalty or 
fidelity to the country. I did not agree 
to all that was proposed, nor did the 
honorable member. I did not approve 
of every measure, nor did he. The war 
had been preceded by the restrictive sys- 
tem and the embargo. As a private in- 
dividual, I certainly did not think well 
of these measures. It appeared to me 
that the embargo annoyed ourselves as 
much as our enemies, while it destroyed 
the business and cramped the spirits 
of the people. In this opinion I may 
have been right or wrong, but the gen- 
tleman was himself of tiie same opinion. 
He told us the other day, as a proof of 
his independence of party on great ques- 
tions, that he differed with his friends 
on the subject of the embargo. He was 



460 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



decidedly and unalterably opposed to it. 
It furnishes in his judgment, therefore, 
no imputation either on my patriotism, 
or on the soundness of my political 
opinions, that I was opposed to it also. 
I mean opposed in opinion; for I was 
not in Congress, and had nothing to do 
with the act creating the embargo. And 
as to opposition to measures for carry- 
ing on the war, after I came into Con- 
gress, I again say, let the gentleman 
specify; let him lay his finger on any 
thing calling for an answer, and he shall 
liave an answer. 

Mr. President, you were yourself in 
the House during a considerable part of 
this time. The honorable gentleman 
may make a witness of you. He may 
make a witness of anybody else. He 
may be his own witness. Give us but 
some fact, some charge, something ca- 
pable in itself either of being proved or 
disproved. Prove any thing, state any 
thing, not consistent with honorable and 
patriotic conduct, and I am ready to an- 
swer it. Sir, I am glad this subject has 
been alluded to in a manner which jus- 
tifies me in taking public notice of it; 
because I am well aware that, for ten 
years past, infinite pains has beeji taken 
to find something, in the range of these 
topics, which might create prejudice 
against me in the country. The jour- 
nals have all been pored over, and the 
reports ransacked, and scraps of para- 
graphs and half-sentences have been col- 
lected, fraudulently put together, and 
then made to flare out as if there had 
been some discovery. But all this failed. 
'J'he next resort was to supposed corre- 
spondence. My letters were sought for, 
to learn if, in the confidence of private 
friendship, I had ever said any thing 
which an enemy could make use of. 
With this view, the vicinity of my for- 
mer residence has been searched, as with 
a lighted candle. New Hampshire has 
been explored, from the mouth of the 
Merrimack to the White Hills. In one 
instance a gentleman had left the State, 
gone five hundred miles off, and died. 
His papers were examined; a letter was 
found, and I have understood it was 
brought to Wasliington; a conclave was 



held to consider it, and the result was, 
that, if there was nothing else against 
Mr. Webster, the matter had better be 
let alone. Sir, I hope to make every- 
body of that opinion who brings against 
me a charge of want of patriotism. Er- 
rors of opinion can be found, doubtless, 
on many subjects; but as conduct flows 
from the feelings which animate the 
heart, I know that no act of my life has 
had its origin in the want of ardent love 
of country. 

Sir, when I came to Congress, I found 
the honorable gentleman a leading mem- 
ber of the House of Representatives. 
Well, Sir, in what did we differ? One 
of the first measures of magnitude, after 
I came here, was Mr. Dallas's ^ proposi- 
tion for a bank. It was a war measure. 
It was urged as being absolutely neces- 
sary to enable government to carry on 
the war. Government wanted revenue; 
such a bank, it was hoped, would furnish 
it; and on that account it was most 
warmly pressed and urged on Congress. 
You remember all this, Mr. President. 
You remember how much some persons 
supposed the success of the war and the 
salvation of the country depended on 
carrying that measure. Yet the honor- 
able member from South Carolina op- 
posed this bill. He now takes to himself 
a good deal of merit, none too much, but 
still a good deal of merit, for having de- 
feated it. Well, Sir, I agreed with him. 
It was a mere paper bank; a machine 
for fabricating irredeemable paper. It 
was a new form for paper money; and 
instead of benefiting the country, I 
thought it would plunge it deeper and 
deeper in difficulty. I made a speech 
on the subject; it has often been quoted. 
There it is; let whoever pleases read and 
examine it. I am not proud of it for 
any ability it exhibits; on the other 
hand, I am not ashamed of it for the 
spirit which it manifests. But, Sir, I 
say again that the gentleman himself 
took the lead against this measure, this 
darling measure of the administration. 
I followed him; if I was seduced into 
error, or into unjustifiable opposition, 
there sits my seducer. 

1 The Secretary of the Treasury. 



REPLY TO Mil. CALHOUN. 



461 



What, Sir, were other leading senti- 
ments or leading measures of that day? 
On what other subjects did men differ? 
The gentleman has adverted to one, and 
that a most important one; I mean the 
navy. He says, and says truly, that at 
the commencement of the war the navy 
was unpopular. It was unpopular witli 
his friends, who then controlled the 
politics of the country. But he says he 
differed with his friends; in this respect 
he resisted party influence and party 
connection, and was the friend and ad- 
vocate of the navy. Sir, I commend 
him for it. He showed his wisdom. 
That gallant little navy soon fought 
itself into favor, and showed that no 
man who had placed reliance on it had 
been disappointed. 

Well, Sir, in all this I was exactly of 
the opinion of the honorable gentleman. 

Sir, I do not know when my opinion 
of the importance of a naval force to the 
United States had its origin. I can give 
no date to my present sentiments on this 
subject, because I never entertained dif- 
ferent sentiments. I remember. Sir, that 
immediately after coming into my pro- 
fession, at a period when the navy was 
most unpopular, when it was called by 
all sorts of hard names and designated 
by many coarse epithets, on one of those 
occasions on which young men address 
their neighbors, I ventured to put forth 
a boy's hand in defence of the navy. I 
insisted on its importance, its adaptation 
to our circumstances and to our national 
character, and its indispensable neces- 
sity, if we intended to maintain and ex- 
tend our commerce. These opinions and 
sentiments I brought into Congress; and 
the first time in which I presumed to 
speak on the topics of the day, I at- 
tempted to urge on the House a greater 
attention to the naval service. There 
were divers modes of prosecuting the 
war. On these modes, or on the degree 
of attention and expense which should 
be bestowed on each, different men held 
different opinions. I confess I looked 
witii most hope to the results of naval 
warfare, and therefore I invoked gov- 
ernment to invigorate and strengthen 
that arm of the national defence. I 



invoked it to seek its enemy upon the 
seas, to go where every au.spicious indi- 
cation i-x^inted, and where the whole 
heart and soul of the country would go 
with it. 

Sir, we were at war with the greatest 
maritime power on earth. England had 
gained an ascendency on the seas over 
all the combined powers of Europe. 
She had been at war twenty years. 
She had tried her fortunes on the Con- 
tinent, but generally with no success. 
At one time the whole Continent had 
been closed against her. A long line of 
armed exterior, an unbroken hostile ar- 
ray, frowned upon her from the Gulf of 
Arciiangel, round the promontory of 
Spain and Portugal, to the extreme point 
of Italy. There was not a port which an 
English ship could enter. Everywhere 
on the land the genius of her great 
enemy had triumphed. He had de- 
feated armies, crushed coalitions, and 
overturned thrones; but, like the fabled 
giant, he was unconquerable only wliile 
he touched the land. On the ocean he 
was powerless. That field of fame was 
his adversary's, and her meteor flag was 
streaming in triumph over its whole ex- 
tent. 

To her mai-itime ascendency England 
owed every thing, and we were now at 
war with her. One of the most charm- 
ing of her poets had said of her, — 

" Her inarch is o'er the mountain waves, 
Her home is on the deep." 

Now, Sir, since we were at war with 
her, I was for intercepting this mai'ch ; 
I was for calling upon her, and paying 
our respects to her, at home; I was for 
giving her to know that we, too, had a 
right of way over the seas, and that our 
marine officers and our sailors were not 
entire strangers on the bosom of the 
deep. I was for doing something more 
with our na\-y than keeping it on our 
own shores, for the protection of our 
coasts and harbors; I was for giving 
play to its gallant and burning spirit; 
for allowing it to go forth upon the seas, 
and to encounter, on an open and an 
equal field, whatever the )>roudest or the 
bravest of the enemy could bring against 



462 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



it. I knew the character of its officers 
and the spirit of its seamen ; and I knew 
that, in their hands, though tlie flag of 
the country might go down to the bot- 
tom, yet, while defended by them, that 
it could never be dishonored or dis- 
graced. 

Since she was our enemy, and a most 
powerful enemy, I was for touching her, 
if we could, in the very apple of her eye ; 
for reaching the highest feather in her 
cap; for clutching at the very brightest 
jewel in her crown. There seemed to 
me to be a peculiar propriety in all this, 
as the war was undertaken for the re- 
dress of maritime injuries alone. It 
was a war declared for free trade and 
sailors' rights. The ocean, therefore, 
was the proper theatre for deciding this 
controversy with our enemy, and on that 
theatre it was my ardent wish that our 
own power should be concentrated to 
the utmost. 

So much, Sir, for the war, and for my 
conduct and opinions as connected with 
it. And, as I do not mean to recur to 
this subject often, nor ever, unless in- 
dispensably necessary, I repeat the de- 
mand for any charge, any accusation, 
any allegation whatever, that throws me 
behind the honorable gentleman, or be- 
hind any other man, in honor, in fidel- 
ity, in devoted love to that country in 
which I was born, which has honored 
me, and which I serve. I, who seldom 
deal in defiance, now, here, in my place, 
boldly defy the honorable member to put 
his insinuation in the form of a charge, 
and to support that charge by any proof 
whatever. 

The gentleman has adverted to the 
subject of slavei-y. On this subject, he 
says, I have not proved myself a friend 
to the South. Why, Sir, the only proof 
is, that T did not vote for his resolu- 
tions. 

Sir, this is a very grave matter ; it is 
a subject very exciting and inflammable. 
r take, of course, all the responsibilitj'^ 
belonging to my opinions; but I desire 
these opinions to be understood, and 
fairly stated. If I am to be regarded as 
an enemy to the South, because I could 
not support the gentleman's resolutions. 



be it so. I cannot purchase favor from 
any quarter, by the sacrifice of clear and 
conscientious convictions. The princi- 
pal resolution declared that Congress 
had plighted its faith not to interfere 
either with slavery or the slave trade 
in the District of Columbia. 

Now, Sir, this is quite a new idea. I 
never heard it advanced until this ses- 
sion. I have heard gentlemen contend 
that no such power was in the Constitu- 
tion; but the notion, that, though the 
Constitution contained the power, yet 
Congress had plighted its faith not to 
exercise such a power, is an entire nov- 
elty, so far as I know. I must say. Sir, 
it appeared to me little else than an at- 
tempt to put a prohibition into the Con- 
stitution, because there was none there 
already. For this supposed plighting of 
the public faith, or the faith of Con- 
gress, I saw no ground, either in the his- 
tory of the government, or in any one 
fact, or in any argument. I therefore 
could not vote for the proposition. 

Sir, it is now several years since I took 
care to make my opinion known, that 
this government has, constitutionally, 
nothing to do with slavery, as it exists 
in the States. That opinion is entirely 
unchanged. I stand steadily by the 
resolution of the House of Representa- 
tives, adopted, after much consideration, 
at the commencement of the govern- 
ment, which was, that Congress has no 
authority to interfere in the emancipa- 
tion of slaves, or in the treatment of 
them, within any of the States; it re- 
maining with the several States alone to 
provide any regulations therein, which 
humanity and true policy may require. 
This, in my opinion, is the Constitution 
and the law. I feel bound by it. I 
have quoted the resolution often. It ex- 
presses the judgment of men of all parts 
of the country, deliberately and coolly 
formed; and it expresses my judgment, 
and I shall adhere to it. But this has 
nothing to do with the other constitu- 
tional question; that is to say, the mere 
constitutional question whether Con- 
gress has the power to regulate slavery 
and the slave trade in the District of 
Columbi/a. 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



463 



On such a question, Sir, when I am 
asked what the Constitution is, or 
whetlier any power granted by it 
has been compromised away, or, in- 
deed, could be compromised away, I 
must express my honest opinion, and 
always shall express it, if 1 say any 
thing, notwithstanding it may not meet 
concurrence either in the South, or the 
North, or the East, or the West. I can- 
not express by my vote what I do not 
believe. The gentleman has chosen to 
bring that subject into this debate, with 
which it has no concern; but he may 
make the most of it, if he thinks he can 
produce unfavorable impressions against 
me at the South from my negative to his 
fifth resolution. As to the rest of them, 
they were commonplaces, generally, or 
abstractions; in regard to which, one 
may well feel himself not called on to 
vote at all. 

And now, Sir, in regard to the tariff. 
That is a long chapter, but I am quite 
ready to go over it with the honorable 
member. 

He charges me with inconsistency. 
That may depend on deciding what in- 
consistency is, in respect to such sub- 
jects, and how it is to be proved. I will 
state the facts, for I have them in mv 
mind somew'hat more fully than the hon- 
orable member has himself presented 
them. Let us begin at the beginning. 
In 1816 I voted against the tariff law 
which then passed. In 1824 I again 
vot«d against the tariff law which was 
then proposed, and which passed. A 
majority of New England votes, in 1824, 
were against the tariff system. The bill 
received but one vote from Massachu- 
setts; but it passed. The policy was 
established. New England acquiesced 
in it; conformed her business and pur- 
suits to it; embarked her capital, and 
employed her labor, in maimfactures ; 
and I certainly admit that, from that 
time, I have felt bound to support inter- 
ests thus called into being, and into im- 
portance, by the settled policy of the 
government. I have stated this often 
here, and often elsewhere. The ground 
is defensible, and I maintain it. 

As to the resolutions adopted in Bos- 



ton in 1820, and which resolutions he 
has caused to be read, and which he says 
he presumes I prepared, I have no rec- 
ollection of having drawn the resolu- 
tions, and do not believe I did. But T 
was at the meeting, and addressed the 
meeting, and what I said on that occa- 
sion was produced here, and read in the 
Senate, years ago. 

The resolutions. Sir, were opposed to 
the commencing of a high tariff policy. 
I was opposed to it, and spoke against 
it; the city of Boston was opposed to it; 
the Commonwealtii of Massachusetts was 
opposed to it. Remember, Sir, that this 
was in 1820. This opposition contin- 
ued till 1824. The votes all show this. 
But in 1824 the question was decided; 
the government entered upon the policy ; 
it invited men to embark their property 
and their means of living in it. Indi- 
viduals thus encouraged have done this 
to a great extent; and therefore I say, 
so long as the manufactures shall need 
reasonable and just protection from gov- 
ernment, I shall be disposed to give it 
to them. What is there. Sir, in all 
this, for the gentleman to complain of? 
Would he have us always oppose the 
policy adopted by the country on a great 
question? Would he have minorities 
never submit to the will of majorities? 

I remember to have said, Sir, at the 
meeting in Faneuil Hall, that protection 
appeared to be regarded as incidental to 
revenue, and that the incident could not 
be carried fairly above the principal ; in 
other words, that duties ought not to be 
laid for the mere object of protection. 
I believe that proposition to be sub- 
stantially correct. I believe that, if the 
power of protection be inferred only 
from the revenue power, the protection 
could only be incidental. 

But I have said in this place before, 
and I repeat it now, that Mr. INIadison's 
publication after that period, and his 
declaration that the Convention did in- 
tend to grant the power of protection 
under the commercial clause, placed the 
suliject in a new and a clear light. I 
will add. Sir, that a paper drawn up 
apparently with tiie sanctiiMi of Dr. 
Franklin, and read to a circle of friend.s 



464 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. " 



at his house, on the eve of the assem- 
bling of tlie Convention, respecting the 
powers wliicli tlie proposed new govern- 
ment ought to possess, shows plainly 
that, in regulating commerce, it was ex- 
pected that Congress would adopt a 
course which should protect the manu- 
factures of the North, lie certainly 
went into the Convention himself under 
that conviction. 

Well, Sir, and now what does the gen- 
tleman make out against me in relation 
to the tariff ? What laurels does he 
gather in this part of Africa? I op- 
posed the policy of the tariif, until it 
had become the settled and established 
policy of the country. I have never 
questioned the consti^-^utional power of 
Congress to grant r tection, except so 
far as the remark made in Faneuil Hal) 
goes, which remark ;espects only the 
length to which protection might prop- 
erly be carried, so far as the power is 
derived from the authority to lay duties 
on imports. But the policy being estab- 
lished, and a great part of the country 
having placed vast interests at stake in 
it, I have not disturbed it; on the con- 
trary, I have insisted that it ought not 
to be disturbed. If there be inconsist- 
ency in all this, the gentleman is at lib- 
erty to blazon it forth ; let him see what 
he can make of it. 

Here, Sir, I cease to speak of myself ; 
and respectfully ask pardon of the Sen- 
ate for having so long detained it upon 
any thing so unimportant as W'hat re- 
lates merely to my own public conduct 
and opinions. 

Sir, the honorable member is pleased 
to suppose that our spleen is excited, 
because he has interfered to snatch from 
us a victory over the administration. If 
he means by this any personal disap- 
pointment, I shall not think it worth 
while to make a remark upon it. If he 
means a disappointment at his quitting 
us while we were endeavoring to arrest 
the present policy of the administration, 
why then I admit. Sir, that I, for one, 
felt that disappointment deeply. It is 
the policy of the administration, its 
principles, and its measures, which I 
oppose. It is not persons, but things; 



not men, but measures. I do wish most 
fervently to put an end to this anti- 
commercial policy ; and if the overthrow 
of the policy shall be followed by the 
political defeat of its authors, why. Sir, 
it is a result which I shall endeavor to 
meet with equanimity. 

Sir, as to the honorable member's 
wresting the victory from us, or as to his 
ability to sustain the administration in 
this policy, there may be some doubt 
about that. I trust the citadel will yet 
be stormed, and carried, by the force of 
public opinion, and that no Hector will 
be able to defend its walls. 

But now. Sir, I must advert to a 
declaration of the honorable member, 
which, I confess, did surprise me. The 
honorable member says, that, personally, 
he and myself have been on friendly 
terms, but that we always differed on 
great constitutional questions. Sir, this 
is astounding. And yet I was partly 
prepared for it; for I sat here the other 
day, and held my breath, while the hon- 
orable gentleman declared, and repeat- 
ed, that he had always belonged to the 
State-rights party. And he means, by 
what he has declared to-day, that he has 
always given to the Constitution a con- 
struction more limited, better guarded, 
less favorable to the extension of the 
powers of this government, than that 
which I have given to it. He has always 
interpreted it according to tlie strict doc- 
trines of tlie school of State rights ! Sir, 
if the honorable member ever belonged, 
until very lately, to the State-rights 
party, the connection was very much 
like a secret marriage. And never was 
secret better kept. Not only were the 
espousals not acknowledged, but all 
suspicion was avoided. There was no 
known familiarity, or even kindness, 
between them. On the contrary, they 
acted like parties who were not at all 
fond of each other's company. 

Sir, is there a man in my hearing, 
among all the gentlemen now surround- 
ing us, many of Vy-hom, of both houses, 
have been here many years, and know 
the gentleman and myself perfectly, — • 
is there one who ever heard, supposed, 
or dreamed that the honorable member 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



465 



belonged to the State-rights party before 
the year 1S25? Can any such connec- 
tion be proved upon him, can he prove it 
upon himself, before that time? 

Sir, I will show you, before I resume 
my seat, that it was not until after the 
gentleman took his seat in the chair 
which you now occupy, that any public 
manifestation, or intimation, was ever 
given by him of his having embraced 
the peculiar doctrines of the State-rights 
party. The truth is. Sir, the honorable 
gentleman had acted a very important 
and useful part during the war. But 
the war t(*rminated. Toward the end 
of the session of lSl-i-15, we received 
the news of peace. This closed the 
Thirteenth Congress. In the fall of 
1815, the Fourteenth Congress assem- 
bled. It was full of ability, and the 
honorable gentleman stood high among 
its distinguished members. He re- 
mained in the House, Sir through the 
whole of tliat Congress; and now. Sir, 
it is easy to show that, during those two 
years, th^ honorable gent lan took a 
decided lead in all those great measures 
which he has since so oft i denounced 
as unconstitutional and oppressive, the 
bank, the tariff, and internal improve- 
ments. The war being terminated, the 
gentleman's mind turned itself toward 
internal administration and improve- 
ment. He surveyed the whole country, 
contemplated its resources, saw what it 
was capable of becoming, and held a 
political faith not so narrow and con- 
tracted as to restrain him from useful 
and efficient action. He was, therefore, 
at once a full length ahead of all others 
in measures which were national, and 
which required a broad and liberal con- 
struction of the Constitution. This is 
historic truth. Of his agency in the 
bank, and other measures connected with 
the currency, I have already spoken, and 
I do not understand him to deny any 
thing I have said, in that particular. 
Indeed, I have said nothing capable of 
denial. 

Now allow me a few words upon the 
tariff. The tariff of 1816 was distinctly 
a South Carolina measure. Look at the 
votes, and you will see it. It was a tariff' 



for the benefit of South Carolina inter- 
ests, and carried through Congress by 
South Carolina votes and South Carolina 
influence. Even the inliiimum, Sir, the so- 
much-reproached, the abominable mini- 
7)111111, that subject of angry indignation 
and wrathful rhetoric, is of Southern 
origin, and has a South Carolina parent- 
age. 

Sir, the contest on that occasion was 
chiefly between the cotton-growers at 
home, and the importers of cotton fab- 
rics from India. These India fabrics 
were made from the cotton of that coun- 
try. The people of this country were 
using cotton fabrics not made of Ameri- 
can cotton, and, so far, they were di- 
minishing the demand for such cotton. 
The importation of India cottons was 
then very large, and this bill was de- 
signed to put an end to it, and, with the 
help of the minimum, it did put an end 
to it. The cotton manufactures of the 
Xorth were then in their infancy. They 
had some friends in Congress, but, if I 
recollect, tiie majority of Massachusetts 
members and of New England members 
were against this cotton tariff of 1816. 
I remember well, that the main debate 
was between the importers of India cot- 
tons, in the North, and the cotton-grow- 
ers of the South. The gentleman can- 
not deny the truth of this, or any part 
of it. Boston opposed this tariff', and 
Salem opposed it, warmly and vigor- 
ously. But the honorable member sup- 
ported it, and the law passed. And 
now be it always remembered, Sir, that 
that act passed on the professed ground 
of protection ; that it had in it the 7?n'/j- 
imum principle, and that the honorable 
member, and other leading gentlemen 
from his own State, supported it, voted 
for it, and carried it through Congress. 

And now. Sir, we come to the doc- 
trine of internal improvement, that 
other usurpation, that other oi)pression, 
which has come so near to justifying 
violent disruption of the government, 
and scattering the fragments of the Un- 
ion to the four winds. Have the gen- 
tleman's State-rights opinions always 
kept him aloof from such unhallowed 
infringements of the Constitution? He 



f 



30 



i 



466 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



says he always differed with me on con- 
stitutional questions. How was it in 
this most important particular? Has he 
here stood on the ramparts, brandishing 
his glittering sword against assailants, 
and holding out a banner of defiance? 
Sir, it is an indisputable truth, that he 
is himself the man, the zjo.se that first 
bi'ought forward in Congress a scheme 
of general internal improvement, at the 
expense and under the authority of this 
government. He, Sir, is the very -man, 
tlie ipslssimus ipse, who considerately, 
and on a settled system, began these un- 
constitutional measures, if they be un- 
constitutional. And now for the proof. 

The act incorporating the Bank of the 
United States was passed in April, 1816. 
For the privileges of the charter, the 
proprietors of the bank were to pay to 
government a bonus, as it was called, of 
one million five hundred thousand dol- 
lars, in certain instalments. Govern- 
ment also took seven millions in the 
stock of the bank. Early in the next 
session of Congress, that is, in Decem- 
ber, 1816, the honorable member moved, 
in the House of Representatives, that a 
committee be appointed to consider the 
propriety of setting apart this bonus, and 
also the dividends on the stock belong- 
ing to the United States, as a permanent 
fund for internal improvement. The 
committee was appointed, and the hon- 
orable member was made its chairman. 
He thus originated the plan, and took 
the lead in its execution. Shortly after- 
wards, he reported a bill carrying out 
the objects for which the committee had 
been appointed. This bill provided that 
the dividends on the seven millions of 
bank stock belonging to government, 
and also the whole of the bonus, should 
be permanently pledged as a fund for 
constructing roads and canals; and that 
this fund should be subject to such spe- 
cific appropriations as Congress might 
subsequently make. 

This was the bill; and this was the 
first project ever brought forward in 
Congress for a system of internal im- 
provements. The bill goes the whole 
doctrine at a single jump. The Cum- 
berland Road, it is true, was already 



in progress ; and for that the gentleman 
had also voted. But there were, and 
are now, peculiarities about that partic- 
ular expenditure which sometimes sat- 
isfy scrupulous consciences ; but this bill 
of the gentleman's, without equivoca- 
tion or saving clause, without if, or and, 
or but, occupied the whole ground at 
once, and announced internal improve- 
ment as one of the objects of this gov- 
ernment, on a grand and systematic 
plan. The bill. Sir, seemed indeed too 
strong. It was thought by persons not 
esteemed extremely jealous of State 
rights to evince too little regard to the 
will of the States. Several gentlemen 
opposed the measure in that shape, on 
that account; and among them Colonel 
Pickering, then one of the Representa- 
tives from Massachusetts. Even Timo- 
thy Pickering could not quite sanction, 
or concur in, the honorable gentleman's 
doctrines to their full extent, although 
he favored the measure in its general 
character. He therefore prepared an 
amendment, as a substitute; and his 
substitute provided for two very impor- 
tant things not embraced in the original 
bill: — 

First, that the proportion of the fund 
to be expended in each State, respec- 
tively, should be in proportion to the 
number of its inhabitants. 

Second, that the money should be ap- 
plied in constructing su'ch roads, canals, 
and so forth, in the several States, as 
Congress might direct, with the assent 
of the State. 

This, Sir, was Timothy Pickering's 
amendment to the gentleman's bill. 
And now. Sir, how did the honorable 
gentleman, who has always belonged to 
the State-rights party, — how did he 
treat this amendment, or this substitute? 
Which way do you think his State-rights 
doctrine led him? Why, Sir, I will tell 
you. He immediately rose, and moved 
to strike out the words '■'■ ivilh the assent 
of the State " .' Here is the journal un- 
der my hand. Sir; and here is the gen- 
tleman's motion. And certainly, Sir, it 
will be admitted that this motion was 
not of a nature to intimate that he was 
wedded to State rights. But the words 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



467 



were not struck out. The motion did 
not prevail. Mr. Pickering's substitute 
was adopted, and the bill passed the 
House in that form. 

In committee of the wliole on this 
bill, Sir, the honorable member made a 
\ L'ry able speech both on the policy of 
internal improvements and the power 
of Congress over the subject. These 
points were fully argued by him. He 
spoke of the importance of the system, 
(he vast good it would produce, and its 
favorable effect on the union of the 
States. " Let lis, then," said he, " bind 
tlie republic together with a perfect sys- 
tem of roads and canals. Let us con- 
(juer space. It is thus the most distant 
parts of the republic will be brought 
within a few days' travel of the centre; 
it is thus that a citizen of the West will 
read the news of Boston still moist from 
the press." 

But on the power of Congress to make 
internal improvements, ay. Sir, on the 
power of Congress, hear him! What 
were then his rules of construction and 
interpretation? IIow did he at that 
time read and understand the Constitu- 
tion? Why, Sir, he said that "he was 
no advocate for refined arguments on 
the Constitution. The instrument was 
not intended as a thesis for the logician 
to exercise his ingenuity on. It ought 
to be construed with plain good-sense." 
This is all very just, I think. Sir; and 
he said much more in the same strain. 
He quoted many instances of laws passed, 
as he contended, on similar principles, 
and then added, that "he introduced 
these instances to prove the uniform 
sense of Congress and of the country 
(for they had not been objected to) as to 
our powers; and surely," said he, "they 
furnish better evidence of the true inter- 
pretation of the Constitution than the 
most refined and subtile arguments." 

Here you see, Mr. President, how 
little original I am. You have heard 
Hie again and again contending in my 
jilace here for the stability of that which 
has been long settled ; you have heard 
me, till I dare say you have been tired, 
insisting that the sense of Congress, so 
often expressed, and the sense of the 



country, so fully shown and so firmly 
established, ought to be regarded its 
having decided finally certain constitu- 
tional questions. You see now, Sir, what 
authority I have for this mode of argu- 
ment. But while the scholar is learning, 
the teacher renounces. AN'ill he apply 
his old doctrine now — I sincerely wish 
he would — to the cpiestion of the bank, 
to the question of the receiving of bank- 
notes by government, to the power of 
Congress over the paper currency? Will 
he admit that these questions ought to 
be regarded as decided by the settled 
sense of Congress and of the country? 
O, no ! Far otherwise. From these 
rules of judgment, and from the influ- 
ence of all considerations of this practi- 
cal nature, the honorable member now 
takes these questions with him into the 
upper heights of metaphysics, into the 
regions of those refinements and subtile 
arguments which he rejected with so 
much decision in 1817, as appears by 
this speech. He quits his old ground of 
common-sense, experience, and the gen- 
eral understanding of the country, for a 
fliglit among theories and ethereal ab- 
stractions. 

And now, Sir, let me ask, when did 
the honorable member relinquish these 
early opinions and principles of his ? 
When did he make known his adhe- 
sion to the doctrines of the State-rights 
party? We have been speaking of 
transactions in 1816 and 1817. What 
the gentleman's opinions then were, we 
have seen. When did he announce him- 
self a State-rights man? I have already 
said, Sir, that nobody knew of his claim- 
ing that character until after the com- 
mencement of 1825; and I have said so, 
because I have before me an address of 
his to his neighbors at Abbeville, in May 
of that year, in which he recounts, very 
properly, the principal incidents in his 
career as a nusmber of Congress, and as 
head of a department; and in which he 
says that, as a member of Congress, he 
had given his zealous efforts in favor of 
a restoration of specie currency, of a due 
protection of those manufactures which 
had taken root during the war, and, 
finally, of a system for connecting the 



468 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



various parts of the country by a judi- 
cious system of internal improvement. 
He adds, that it afterwards became his 
duty, as a member of the administra- 
tion, to aid in sustaining against the 
boldest assaults those very measures 
■which, as a member of Congress, he 
had contributed to establish. 

And now. Sir, since the honorable 
gentleman says he has diffei'ed with me 
on constitutional questions, will he be 
pleased to say what constitutional opin- 
ion I have ever avowed for which I have 
not his express authority? Is it on the 
bank power? the tariff power? the power 
of internal improvement? I have shown 
his votes, his speeches, and his conduct, 
on all these subjects, up to the time when 
General Jackson became a candidate for 
the Presidency. From that time. Sir, I 
know we have differed ; but if there was 
any difference before that time, I call 
upon him to point it out, to declare what 
was the occasion, what the question, and 
what the difference. And if before that 
period, Sir, by any speech, any vote, 
any public proceeding, or by any mode 
of announcement whatever, he gave the 
world to know that he belonged to the 
State-rights party, I hope he will now 
be kind enough to produce it, or to refer 
to it, or to tell us where we may look 
for it. 

Sir, I will pursue this topic no farther. 
I would not have pursued it so far, I 
would not have entered upon it at all, 
had it not been for the astonishment I 
felt, mingled, I confess, with something 
of warmer feeling, when the honorable 
gentleman declared that he had always 
differed with me on constitutional ques- 
tions. Sir, the honorable member read 
a quotation or two from a speech of 
mine in 1816, on the currency or bank 
question. With what intent, or to what 
end? What inconsistency does he show? 
Speaking of the legal currency of the 
country, that is, the coin, I then said it 
was in a good state. Was not that true? 
I was speaking of the legal currency ; of 
that which the law made a tender. And 
how is that inconsistent with any thing 
said by me now, or ever said by me? I 
declared then, he says, that the fram- 



ers of this government were hard-money 
men. Certainly they were. But are 
not the friends of a convertible paper 
hard-money men, in every practical and 
sensible meaning of the term? Did I, 
in that speech, or any other, insist on 
excluding all convertible paper from the 
uses of society? Most assuredly I did 
not. I never quite so far lost my wits, 
I think. There is but a single sentence 
in that speech which I should qualify if 
I were to deliver it again, and that the 
honorable member has not noticed. It 
is a paragraph respecting the power of 
Congress over the circulation of State 
banks, which might perhaps need ex- 
planation or correction. Understanding 
it as applicable to the case then before 
Congress, all the rest is perfectly ac- 
cordant with my present oj^jinions. It 
is well known that I never doubted the 
power of Congress to create a bank ; that 
I was always in favor of a bank, con- 
stituted on proper principles; that I 
voted for the bank bill of 1815; and 
that I opposed that of 1816 only on ac- 
count of one or two of its provisions, 
which I and others hoped to be able to 
strike out. I am a hard-money man, 
and always have been, and always shall 
be. But I know the gi'eat use of such 
bank paper as is convertible into hard 
money on demand ; which may be called 
specie paper, and which is equivalent to 
sjiecie in value, and much more con- 
venient and useful for common pur- 
poses. On the other hand, I abhor all 
irredeemable paper; all old-fashioned 
paper money; all deceptive promises; 
every thing, indeed, in the shape of 
paper issued for circulation, whether by 
government or individuals, which cannot 
be turned into gold and silver at the wiU 
of the holder. 

But, Sir, I have insisted that govern- 
ment is bound to protect and regulate 
the means of commerce, to see that there 
is a sound currency for the use of the 
people. The honorable gentleman asks, 
What then is the limit? Must Congress 
also furnish all means of commerce? 
Must it furnish weights and scales and 
steelyards? Most undoubtedly, Sir, it 
must regulate weights and measures, 



IIEI'LY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



469 



aiul it floos Fo. But the answer to the 
general que. t Ion is very obvious. Gov- 
ernment uuist i'uruish all that which 
none but government can furnish. Gov- 
ernment must do that for individuals 
which iudividiuils cannot do for them- 
selves. That is the very end of govern- 
ment. Why else have we a government? 
Can individuals make a currency? Can 
individuals regulate money? The dis- 
tinction is as broad and plain as the 
Pennsylvania Avenue. No man can 
mistake it, or well blunder out of it. 
The gentleman asks if government must 
furnish for the people ships, and boats, 
and wagons. Certainly not. The gen- 
tleman here only recites the I'resident's 
message of Sejitember. These things, 
and all such things, the peoi:)le can fui'- 
nish for themselves; but they cannot 
make a currency; they cannot, indi- 
vidually, decide what shall be the money 
of the country. That, everybody knows, 
is one of the prerogatives, and one of the 
duties, of government; and a duty which 
I think we are most unwisely and im- 
properly neglecting. We may as well 
leave the people to make war and to 
make peace, each man for himself, as 
to leave to individuals the regulation of 
commerce and currency. 

Mr. President, there are other remarks 
of the gentleman of which I might take 
notice. But should I do so, I could only 
repeat what I have already said, either 
now or heretofore. I shall, therefore, 
not now allude to them. My principal 
jiurpose in wliat I have said has been to 
defend myself; that was my first object; 
and next, as the honorable member has 
attempted to take to himself the char- 
acter of a strict constructionist, and a 
State-rights man, and on that basis to 
show a difference, not favorable to me, 
between his constitutional opinions and 
my own, heretofore, it has been my in- 
tention to show that the power to create 
a bank, the power to regulate the cur- 
rency by other and direct means, the 
power to enact a protective tariff, and 
the power of internal iniprovement, in 
its broadest sense, are all powers which 
the honorable gentleman himself has sup- 
ported, has acted on, and in the exercise 



of which, indeed, he has taken a distin- 
guished lead in the counsels of Congress. 

If this has been done, my purpose is 
answered. I do not wish to prolong the 
discussion, nor to spin it out into a col- 
lo(iuy. If the honorable member has 
any thing new to bring forward; if he 
has any charge to make, any proof, or 
any specification; if he has any thing to 
advance against my opinions or my con- 
duct, my honor or patriotism, I am still 
at home. I am here. If not, then, so 
far as I am concerned, this discussion 
will here terminate. 

I will say a few words, before I resume 
my seat, on the motion now pending. 
That motion is to strike out the specie- 
paying part of the bill. I have a suspi- 
cion, Sir, tliat the motion will prevail. If 
it should, it will leave a great vacuum; 
and how shall that vacuum be filled ? 

The part proposed to be struck out is 
that which requires all debts to govern- 
ment to be paid in specie. It makes a 
good provision for government, and for 
public men, through all classes. The 
Secretary of the Treasury, in his letter at 
the last session, was still more watchful 
of the interests of the holders of office. 
He assured us, that, bad as the times 
were, and notwithstanding the floods of 
bad paper which deluged the country, 
members of Congress should get gold 
and silver. In my opinion. Sir, this is 
beginning the use of good money in 
payments at the wrong end of the list. 
If there be bad money in the country, I 
think that Secretaries and other execu- 
tive officers, and especially members of 
Congress, should be the last to receive 
any good money ; because they have the 
power, if they will do their duty, and 
exercise it, of making the money of the 
country good for all. I think, Sir, it 
was a leading feature in Mr. Burke's 
famous bill for economical reform, tluvt 
he provided, first of all, for those who 
are least able to secure themselves. 
Everybody else was to be well paid all 
they were entitled to, before the minis- 
ters of the crown, and other political 
characters, should have any thing. This 
seems to me very right. But we have a 
precedent. Sir, in our own country, more 



470 



REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 



directly to the purpose; and as that 
which we now hope to strike out is the 
part of the bill furnished or proposed 
originally by the honorable member 
from South Carolina, it will naturally 
devolve on him to supply its place. I 
wish, therefore, to draw his particular 
attention to this precedent, which I am 
now about to produce. 

Most members of the Senate will re- 
member, that before the establishment 
of this government, and before or about 
the time that the territory which now 
constitutes the State of Tennessee was 
ceded to Congress, the inhabitants of 
the eastern part of that territory estab- 
lished a government for themselves, and 
called it the State of Franklin. They 
adopted a very good constitution, pro- 
viding for the usual branches of legis- 
lative, executive, and judicial power. 
They laid and collected taxes, and per- 
formed other usual acts of legislation. 
They had, for the present, it is true, no 
maritime possessions, yet they followed 
the common forms in constituting high 
officers ; and their governor was not only 
captain-general and commander-in-chief, 
but admiral also, so that the navy might 
have a commander when there should be 
a navy. 

Well, Sir, the currency in this State 
of Franklin became very much de- 
ranged. Specie was scarce, and equally 
scarce were the notes of specie-paying 
banks. But the legislature did not pro- 
pose any divorce of government and 
people; they did not seek to establish 
two currencies, one for men in office, 
and one for the rest of the community. 
They were content with neighbor's fare. 
It became necessary to pass what we 
should call now-a-days the civil-list ap- 
propriation bill. They passed such a 
bill; and when we shall have made a 
void in the bill now before us by strik- 
ing out specie payments for government, 
I recommend to its friends to fill the 
gap, by inserting, if not the same pro- 
visions as were in the law of the State 
of Franklin, at least something in the 
same spirit. 

The preamble of that law. Sir, be- 
gins by reciting, that the collection of 



taxes in specie had become very oppres- 
sive to the good people of the common- 
wealth, for the want of a circulating 
medium. A parallel case to ours. Sir, 
exactly. It recites further, that it is 
the duty of the legislature to hear, at 
all times, the prayer of their constit- 
uents, and apply as speedy a remedy 
as lies in their power. These senti- 
ments are very just, and I sincerely wish 
there was a thorough disposition here to 
adopt the like. 

Acting under the influence of these 
sound opinions. Sir, the legislature of 
Franklin passed a law for the support of 
the civil list, which, as it is short, I will 
beg permission to read. It is as fol- 
lows : — 

" Be it enacted by the General Assembly of 
the State of Franklin, and it is hereby enacted 
by the authority of the same, That, from the 
first day of January, a. d. 1789, the sala- 
ries of the civil officers of this common- 
wealth be as follows, to wit : 

" His excellency, the governor, per annum, 
one thousand deer-skins ; his honor, the 
chief justice, five hundred do. do.; the at- 
torney-general, five hundred do. do. ; secre- 
tary to his excellency the governor, five 
hundred raccoon do. ; the treasurer of the 
State, four hundred and fifty otter do. ; 
each county clerk, three hundred beaver 
do. ; clerk of the house of commons, two 
hundred raccoon do. ; members of assem- 
bly, ;)er diem, three do. do.; justice's fee 
for signing a warrant, one muskrat do. ; to 
the constable, for serving a warrant, one 
mink do. 

" Enacted into a law this 18th day of Oc- 
tober, 1788, under the great seal of the 
State. 

" Witness his excellency, &c. 
" Governor, captain-general, commander-in-chief, 
and admiral in and over said State." 

This, Sir, is the law, the spirit of 
which I commend to gentlemen. I will 
not speak of the appropriateness of these 
several allowances for the civil list. But 
the example is good, and I am of opin- 
ion that, until Congress shall perform 
its duty, by seeing that the country en- 
joys a good currency, the same medium 
which the people are obliged to use, 
whether it be skins or rags, is good 
enough for its own members. 



A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 

FROM A SPEECH DELIVERKD IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 
THE ISth of MAY, 1840, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BILL 
ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 



Let me remind you, then, in the first 
place, Sir, that, commercial as the coun- 
try is, and having experienced as it 
has done, and experiencing as it now 
does, great vicissitudes of trade and 
business, it is almost forty years since 
any law has been in force by which any 
honest man, failing in business, could 
be effectually discharged from debt by 
surrf-ndering liis property. The former 
bankrupt law was repealed on the 19th 
of December, 1803. From that day to 
this, the condition of an insolvent, how- 
ever honest and worthy, has been ut- 
terly hopeless, so far as he depended on 
any legal mode of relief. This state 
of things has arisen from the peculiar 
provisions of the Constitution of the 
United States, and from the omission 
by Congress to exercise this brancli 
of its constitutional power. By the 
Constitution, the States are prohib- 
ited from passing laws impairing the 
obligation of contracts. Bankrupt laws 
impair the obligation of contracts, if 
they discharge the bankrupt from his 
debts without payment. The States, 
therefore, cannot pass such laws. 1"he 
power, then, is taken from the States, 
and placed in our hands. It is true that 
it has been decided, that, in regard to 
contracts entered into alter tlie passage 
of any State bankrupt law, between the 
citizens of the State having such law, 
and sued in the State courts, a State 
discharge may prevail. So far, effect 



has been given to State laws. I have 
great respect, habitually, for judicial 
decisions ; but it has nevertheless, I 
must say, always appeared to me that 
the distinctions on which these decisions 
are founded are slender, and that they 
evade, without answering, the objec- 
tions founded on the great political and 
commercial objects intended to be se- 
cured by this part of the Constitution. 
But these decisions, whether right or 
wrong, afford no effectual relief. The 
qualifications and limitations which I 
have stated render them useless, as to 
the purpose of a general discharge. So 
much of the concerns of every man of 
business is with citizens of other States 
than his own, and with foreigners, that 
the partial extent to which the validity 
of State discharges reaches is of little 
benefit. 

The States, then, cannot pass effect- 
ual bankrupt laws; that is, effectual for 
the discharge of the debtor. There is 
no doubt that most, if not all, the States 
would now pass such laws, if they liad 
the power ; although their legislation 
would be various, interfering, and full 
of all the evils which the Constitution 
of the United States intended to pro- 
vide against. But they have not tlie 
power; Congress, which has the power, 
does not exercise it. This is the pe- 
culiarity of our condition. The States 
would pass baiikrui>t laws, hut they can- 
not; we can, but we will not. And be- 



472 



A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 



tween this want of power in the States 
and want of will in Congress, unfortu- 
nate insolvents are left to hopeless bond- 
age. There are piobably one or two hun- 
dred thousand debtors, honest, sober, 
and industrious, who drag out lives use- 
less to themselves, useless to their fam- 
ilies, and useless to their country, for no 
reason but that they cannot be legally 
discharged from debts in which misfor- 
tunes have involved them, and which 
there is no possibility of their ever pay- 
ing. I repeat, again, that these cases 
have now been accumulating for a whole 
generation. 

It is true they are not imprisoned; 
but there may be, and there are, re- 
straint and bondage outside the walls of 
the jail, as well as in. Their power of 
earning is, in truth, taken away, their 
faculty of useful employment is par- 
alyzed, and hope itself become extin- 
guished. Creditors, generally, are not 
inhuman or unkind; but there will be 
found some who hold on, and the more 
a debtor struggles to free himself, the 
more they feel encouraged to hold on. 
The mode of reasoning is, that, the 
more honest the debtor may be, the 
more industrious, the more disposed to 
struggle and bear up against his misfor- 
tunes, the greater the chance is, that, in 
the end, especially if the humanity of 
others shall have led them to release 
him, their own debts may be finally re- 
covered. 

Now, in this state of our constitu- 
tional powers and duties, in this state 
of our laws, and with this actually ex- 
isting condition of so many insolvents 
before us, it is not too serious to ask 
every member of the Senate to put it to 
his own conscience to say, whether we 
are not bound to exercise our constitu- 
tional duty. Can we abstain from ex- 
ercising it? The States give to their 
own laws all the effect the}^ can. This 
shows that they desire the power to be 
exercised. Several States have, in the 
most solemn manner, made known their 
earnest wishes to Congress. If we still 
refuse, what is to be done? Many of 
these insolvent persons are young men 
with young families. Like other men, 



they have capacities both for action and 
enjoyment. Are we to stifle all these 
for ever? Are we to suffer all these 
persons, many of them meritorious and 
respectable, to be pressed to the earth 
for ever, by a load of hopeless debt? 
The existing diversities and contradic- 
tions of State laws on the subject ad- 
mirably illustrate the objects of this 
part of the Constitution, as stated by 
Mr. Madison; and they form that pre- 
cise case for which the clause was in- 
serted. The very evil intended to be pro- 
vided against is before us, and around us, 
and pressing us on all sides. How can 
we, how dare we, make a perfect dead 
letter of this part of the Constitution, 
which we have sworn to sujiport? The 
insolvent persons have not the power of 
locomotion. They cannot travel from 
State to State. They are prisoners. To 
my certain knowledge, there are many 
who cannot even come here to the seat 
of government, to present their peti- 
tions to Congress, so great is their fear 
that some creditor will dog their heels, 
and arrest them in some intervening 
State, or in this District, in the hope 
that friends will appear to save them, 
by payment of the debt, from imprison- 
ment. 

These are truths; not creditable to 
the country, but they are truths. I am 
sorry for their existence. Sir, there 
is one crime, quite too common, which 
the laws of man do not punish, but 
which cannot escape the justice of God; 
and that is, the arrest and confinement 
of a debtor by his creditor, with no mo- 
tive on earth but the hoj^e that some 
friend, or some relative, perhaps almost 
as poor as himself, his mother it may 
be, or his sisters, or his daughters, will 
give up all their own little pittance, and 
make beggars of themselves, to save him 
from the horrors of a loathsome jail. 
Human retribution cannot reach this 
guilt; human feeling may not penetrate 
the flinty heart that perpetrates it ; but 
an hour is surely coming, with more 
than human retribution on its wings, 
when that flint shall be melted, either 
by the power of penitence and grace, or 
in the fires of remorse. 



A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKUUrTCY. 



473 



Sir, I verily believe that the power of 
perpetuating debts against debtors, for 
no substantial good to the creditor him- 
self, and tlie power of imprisonment for 
debt, at least as it existed in this coun- 
try ten years ago, have imposed more 
restraint on personal liberty than the 
law of debtor and creditor imposes in 
any other Christian and commercial 
country. If any public good were at- 
tained, any high political object an- 
swered, by such laws, there might be 
some reason for counselling submission 
and sufferance to individuals. But the 
result is bad, every way. It is bad to the 
public and to the country, which loses 
the efforts and the industry of so many 
useful and capable citizens. It is bad 
to creditors, because there is no secu- 
rity against preferences, no principle of 
equality, and no encouragement for hon- 
est, fair, and seasonable assignments of 
effects. As to the debtor, however good 
his intentions or earnest his endeavors, 
it subdues his spirit and degrades him 
in his own esteem ; and if he attempts 
any thing for the purpose of obtaining 
food and clothing for his family, he is 
driven to unworthy shifts and disguises, 
to the use of other persons' names, to 
the adoption of the character of agent, 
and various other contrivances, to keep 
the little earnings of the day from the 
reach of his creditors. Fathers act in 
the name of their sons, sons act in the 
name of their fathers; all constantly 
exposed to the greatest temptation to 
misrepresent facts and to evade the 
law, if creditors should strike. All 
this is evil, unmixed evil. And what 
is it all for? Of what benefit to any- 
body? Who likes it? Who wishes 
it? What class of creditors desire it? 
What consideration of public good de- 
mands it? 

Sir, we talk much, and talk warmly, 
of political liberty; and well w'e may, 
for it is among the chief of public bless- 
ings. But who can enjoy political liberty 
if he is deprived, permanently, of per- 
sonal liberty, and the exercise of his own 
industry and his own faculties? To 
those unfortunate individuals, doomed 
to the everlasting bondage of debt, what 



is it that we have free institutions of 
government? What is it that we have 
public and popular assemblies? What 
is even this Constitution itself to them, 
in its actual operation, and as we now 
administer it? What is its aspect to 
them, but an aspect of stern, imi)lacable 
severity? an aspect of refusal, denial, 
and frowning rebuke? nay, more than 
that, an aspect not only of austerity and 
rebuke, but, as they must think it, of 
plain injustice also, since it will not re- 
lieve them, nor suffer others to give them 
relief? W'hat love can they feel towards 
the Constitution of their country, which 
has taken the power of striking off their 
bonds from their ow'u paternal State 
governments, and yet, inexorable to all 
the cries of justice and of mercy, holds 
it unexercised in its own fast and unre- 
lenting grasp? They find themselves 
bondsmen, because we will not exe- 
cute the commands of the Constitution; 
bondsmen to debts they cannot pay, 
and which all know they cannot pay, 
and which take away the power of sup- 
porting themselves. Other slaves have 
masters, charged with the duty of sup- 
port and protection; but their masters 
neither clothe, nor feed, nor shelter; 
they only bind. 

But, Sir, the fault is not in the Con- 
stitution. The Constitution is benefi- 
cent as well as wise in all its provisions 
on this subject. The fault, I must be 
allowed to say, is in us, who have suf- 
fered ourselves quite too long to neglect 
the duty incumbent upon us. The time 
will come. Sir, when we shall look back 
and wonder at the long delay of this just 
and salutary measure. We shall then 
feel as we now feel when we reflect on 
that progress of opinion which has al- 
ready done so much on another con- 
nected subject; I mean the abolition of 
imprisonment for debt. Wliat should 
we say at this day, if it were proposed 
to re-establish arrest and imprisonment 
for debt, as it existed in most of the 
States even so late as twenty years ago? 
I mean for debt alone, for mere, pure 
debt, without charge or suspicion of 
fraud or falsehood. 

Sir, it is about that length of time, I 



474 



A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 



think, since you,i who now preside over 
our deliberations, began here your efforts 
for the abolition of imprisonment for 
debt; and a better work was never be- 
gun in the Capitol. Ever remembered 
and ever honored be that noble effort! 
You drew the attention of the public to 
the question, whether, in a civilized and 
Christian country, debt incurred with- 
out fraud, and remaining unpaid with- 
out fault, is a crime, and a crime fit to 
be punished by denying to the offender 
the enjoyment of the light of heaven, 
and shutting him up within four walls. 
Your own good sense, and that instinct 
of right feeling which often outruns sa- 
gacity, carried you at once to a result to 
which others were more slowly brought, 
but to which nearly all have at length 
been brought, by reason, reflection, and 
argument. Your movement led the way ; 
it became an example, and has had a 
powerful effect on both sides of the At- 
lantic. Imprisonment for debt, or even 
arrest and holding to bail for mere 
debt, no longer exists in England; and 
former laws on the subject have been 
greatly modified and mitigated, as we 
all know, in our States. " Abolition 
of imprisonment for debt," your own 
words in the title of your own bill, 
has become the title of an act of Par- 
liament. 

Sir, I am glad of an occasion to pay 
you the tribute of my sincere respect for 
these your labors in the cause of human- 
ity and enlightened policy. For these 
labors thousands of grateful heai'ts have 
thanked you ; and other thousands of 
hearts, not yet full of joy for the accom- 
plishment of their hopes, full, rather, at 
the present moment, of deep and dis- 
tressing anxiety, have yet the pleasure 
to know that your advice, your counsel, 
and your influence will all be given in 
favor of what is intended for their relief 
iu tlie bill before us. 

Mr. President, let us atone for the 
omissions of the past by a prompt and 
efficient discharge of present duty. The 
demand for this measure is not partial 
or local. It comes to us, earnest and 

1 Hon. Richard M. Johnson, Vice-President 
of the United States. 



loud, from aU classes and all quarters. 
The time is come when we must answer 
it to our own consciences, if we suffer 
longer delay or postponement. High 
hopes, high duties, and high responsibili- 
ties concentrate themselves on this meas- 
ure and this moment. With a power 
to pass a bankrupt law, which no other 
legislature in the country possesses, with 
a power of giving relief to many, doing 
injustice to none, I again ask every man 
who hears me, if he can content himself 
without an honest attempt to exercise 
that power. We may think it would be 
better to leave the power with the States ; 
but it was not left with the States; they 
have it not, and we cannot give it to 
them. It is in our hands, to be exer- 
cised by us, or to be for ever useless and 
lifeless. Under these circumstances, 
does not every man's heart tell him that 
he has a duty to discharge? If the final 
vote shall be given this day, and if that 
vote shall leave thousands of our fellow- 
citizens and their families, in hopeless 
and helpless distress, to everlasting sub- 
jection to irredeemable debt, can we go 
to our beds with satisfied consciences? 
Can we lay our heads upon our pillows, 
and, without self-reproach, supplicate 
the Almighty Mercy to forgive us our 
debts as we forgive our debtors? Sir, 
let us meet the unanimous wishes of the 
country, and proclaim relief to the un- 
fortunate throughout the land. What 
should hinder? What should stay our 
hands from this good work? Creditors 
do not oppose it, — they ajiiply for it; 
debtors solicit it, with an imjiortunity, 
earnestness, and anxiety not to be de- 
scribed; the Constitution enjoins it; and 
all the considerations of justice, policy, 
and propriety, which are wrapped up in 
the phrase Public Duty, demand it, as I 
think, and demand it loudly and impera- 
tively, at our hands. Sir, let us gratify 
the whole country, for once, with the 
joyous clang of chains, joyous because 
heard falling from the limbs of men. 
The wisest among those whom I address 
can desire nothing more beneficial than 
this measure, or more universally de- 
sired; and he who is youngest may not 
expect to live long enough to see a bet- 



A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 



475 



ter opportunily of causing new pleasures 
and a happiness long untasted to spring 
up in the hearts of the poor and the 
liumble. How many husbands and fa- 
thers are looking witli hopes which tliey 
cannot suppress, and yet hardly dare to 
cherish, for the result of this di^bate! 
How many wives and mothers will pass 
sleepless and feverish nights, until they 
know whether they and their families 
shall be raised from poverty, despond- 



ency, and despair, and restored again 
to the circles of industrious, indepen- 
dent, and happy life I 

Sir, let it be to the honor of Congress 
that, in these days of political strife and 
controversy, we have laid aside for once 
the sin that most easily besets us, and, 
with unanimity of counsel, and witli 
singleness of heart and of purpose, have 
accomplished for our country one meas- 
ure of unquestionable good. 



"THE LOG CABIN CANDIDATE." 

FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE GREAT MASS MEETING AT SARATOGA, 
NEW YORK, ON THE 12rH OF AUGUST, 1840. 



But it is the cry and effort of the 
times to stimulate those who are called 
poor against those who are called rich; 
and yet, among those who urge this cry, 
and seek to profit by it, there is be- 
trayed sometimes an occasional sneer at 
whatever savors of humble life. Wit- 
ness the repi-oach against a candi- 
date now befr -^^ the people for their 
highest hoi.ors, that a log cabin, with 
plenty of hard cider, is good enough for 
him! 

It appears to some persons, that a 
great deal too much use is made of the 
symbol of the log cabin. No man of 
sense supposes, certainly, that the hav- 
ing lived in a log cabin is any further 
proof of qualification for the Presidency, 
than as it creates a presumption that 
any one who, rising from humble con- 
dition, or under unfavorable circum- 
stances, has been able to attract a con- 
siderable degree of public attention, is 
possessed of reputable qualities, moral 
and intellectual. 

But it is to be remembered, that this 
matter of the log cabin originated, not 
with the friends of the Whig candidate, 
but with his enemies. Soon after his 
nomination at Harrisburg, a writer for 
one of the leading administration papers 
spoke of his " log cabin," and his use of 
" hard cider," by way of sneer and re- 
proach. As might have been expected, 
(for pretenders are apt to be thrown off 
their guard,) this taunt at humble life 



proceeded from the party which claims 
a monopoly of the purest democracy. 
The whole party appeared to enjoy it, 
or, at least, they countenanced it by si- 
lent acquiescence; for I do not know 
that, to this day, any eminent indi- 
vidual or any leading newspaper at- 
tached to the administration has rebuked 
this scornful jeering at the supposed 
humble condition or circumstances in 
life, past or present, of a worthy man 
and a war-worn soldier. But it touched 
a tender point in the public feeling. It 
naturally roused indignation. What was 
intended as reproach was immediately 
seized on as merit. "Be it so! Be it 
so! " was the instant burst of the public 
voice. " Let him be the log cabin can- 
didate. What you say in scorn, we will 
shout with all our lungs. From this 
day forward, we have our cry of rally; 
and we shall see whether he who has 
dwelt in one of the rude abodes of the 
West may not become the best house in 
the country ! ' ' 

All this is natural, and springs from 
sources of just feeling. Other things, 
Gentlemen, have had a similar origin. 
We all know that the term "Whig" 
was bestowed in derision, two hundred 
years ago, on those who were thought 
too fond of liberty ; and our national air 
of ' ' Yankee Doodle ' ' was composed by 
British officers, in ridicule of the Amer- 
ican troops. Yet, erelong, the last of 
the British armies laid down its arms at 



"THE LOG CABIN CANDIDATE." 



477 



Yorktown, while this same air was play- 
ing in the ears of officers and men. 
Gentlemen, it is only shallow-minded 
pretenders who either make distin- 
guished origin matter of personal merit, 
or obscure origin matter of personal re- 
proach. Taunt and scoffing at the hum- 
ble condition of early life affect nobody, 
in this country, but those who are fool- 
ish enough to indulge in them, and they 
are generally sufficiently punished by 
public rebuke. A man who is not 
ashamed of himself need not be ashamed 
of his early condition. 

Gentlemen, it did not happen to me 
to be born in a log cabin ; but my elder 
brotliers and sisters were born in a log 
cabin, raised amid the snow-drifts of 
New Hampshire, at a period so early 
that, when the smoke first rose from its 
rude chimney, and curled over the frozen 
hills, there was no similar evidence of a 
white man's habitation between it and 
the settlements on the rivers of Canada. 



Its remains still exist. I make to it an 
annual visit. I carry my children to it, 
to teach them the hardships endured by 
the generations whicli liave gone before 
them. I love to dwell on the tender 
recollections, the kindred ties, thi; early 
atfections, and the touching narratives 
and incidents, which mingle with all I 
know of this primitive family al)ode. I 
weep to think that none of those who 
inhabited it are now among the living; 
and if ever I am ashamed of it, or if I 
ever fail in affectionate veneration for 
him who reared it, and defended it 
against savage violence and destruction, 
cherished all the d(nni'stic virtues be- 
neath its roof, and, through the fire and 
blood of a seven years' revolutionary 
war, shrunk from no danger, no toil, no 
sacrifice, to serve his country, and to 
raise his children to a condition better 
than his own, may my name and the 
name of my posterity be blotted for ever 
from the memory of mankind! 



ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 

REMARKS AT A PUBLIC RECEPTION BY THE LADIES OF RICHMOND, VIR- 
GINIA, ON THE 5th of OCTOBER, 1840. 



[The visit of Mr. Webster to Richmond 
was short, and his public engagements so 
numerous, as to put it out of his power to 
return the calls of his friends, or to pay his 
respects to their families. It was accord- 
ingly proposed that the ladies who might 
desire to do so should assemble in the 
" Log Cabin," and that he should there pay 
his respects to them collectively. The 
meeting was large, and the building quite 
full. On being introduced to them in a 
few appropriate remarks, by Mr. Lyons, 
Mr. Webster addressed them in the follow- 
ing speech.] 

Ladies, — I am very sure I owe the 
pleasure I now enjoy to your kind dis- 
position, which has given me the oppor- 
tunity to present my thanks and my 
respects to you thus collectively, since 
the shortness of my stay in the city does 
not allow me the happiness of calling 
upon those, severally and individually, 
from members of whose families I have 
received kindness and notice. And, in 
the first place, I wish to express to you 
my deep and hearty thanks, as I have 
endeavored to do to your fathers, your 
husbands, and your brothers, for the 
unbounded hospitality I have received 
ever since I came among you. This is 
registered, I assure you, in a grateful 
heart, in characters of an enduring na- 
ture. The rough contests of the politi- 
cal world are not suited to the dignity 
and the delicacy of your sex; but you 
possess the intelligence to know how 
much of that happiness which you are 
entitled to hope for, both for yourselves 
and for your children, depends on the 
right administration of government, and 



a proper tone of public morals. That 
is a subject on which the moral percep- 
tions of woman are both qviicker and 
juster than those of the other sex. I 
do not speak of tliat administration of 
government whose object is merelj^ the 
protection of industry, the preservation 
of civil liberty, and tlie securing to en- 
terprise of its due reward. I speak of 
government in a .somewliat higher point 
of view ; I speak of it in regard to its 
influence on the morals and sentiments 
of the community. We live in an age 
distinguished for great benevolent ex- 
ertion, in which the affluent are conse- 
crating the means they possess to the 
endowment of colleges and academies, 
to the building of churches, to the sup- 
port of religion and religious worship, to 
the encouragement of schools, lyceums, 
and athenaeums, and other means of 
general popular instruction. This is all 
well ; it is admirable ; it augurs well for 
the pro.spects of ensuing generations. 
But I have sometimes thought, that, 
amid.st all tliis activity and zeal of the 
good and the benevolent, the influence 
of government on the moi-als and on 
the religious feelings of the commu- 
nity is apt to be overlooked or under- 
rated. I speak, of course, of its in- 
direct influence, of the power of its 
example, and the general tone which it 
inspires. 

A popular government, in all these 
respects, is a most powerful institution; 
more powerful, as it has sometimes ap- 
peared to mt, than the influence of most 



ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 



479 



other human institutions put together, 
either for good or for evil, according to 
its cliaracter. Its example, its tone, 
wliether of regard or disregard for moral 
obligation, is most important to hunuiu 
happiness; it is among those things 
which most affect the political morals of 
mankind, and their general jnorals also. 
1 advert to this, because there has been 
put forth, in modern times, the false 
maxim, that there is one morality for 
politics, and another morality for other 
things; that, in their political conduct 
to their opponents, men may say and do 
tiiat which they would never think of 
saying or doing in the personal relations 
of private life. There has been openly 
announced a sentiment, which I con- 
sider as the very essence of false moral- 
ity, which declares that "all is fair in 
politics." If a man speaks falsely or 
calumniously of his neighbor, and is 
reproached for the offence, the ready 
excuse is this: " It was in relation to 
public and political matters; I cherished 
no personal ill-will whatever against 
that individual, but quite the contrary; 
I spoke of my adversary merely as a 
political man." In my opinion, the day 
is cominjr when falsehood will stand for 
falsehood, and calumny will be treated as 
a breach of the commandment, whether 
it be committed politically or in the con- 
cerns of private life. 

It is by the promulgation of sound 
morals in the conmiunity, and more es- 
pecially by the training and instruction 
of the young, that woman performs her 
part towards the preservation of a free 
governiTient. It is generally admitted 
that public liberty, and the perpetuity 
(if a free constitution, rest on the virtue 
and intelligence of the community which 
enjoys it. IIow is that virtue to be in- 
spired, and how is that intelligence to be 
communicated? Bonaparte once asked 
Madame de Stael in wliat manner he 
could best promote the happiness of 
France. Iler reply is full of political 
wisdom. She said, " Inst.uct the moth- 
ers of the French people." Alothers 
are, indeed, the affectionate and effective 
teachers of the human race. The moth- 
er begins her process of training with the 



infant in her arms. It is slie who directs, 

so to speak, its first mental and spiritual 
pulsations. She conducts it along tiie 
impressible years of childhood and youth , 
and hopes to deliver it to the stern con- 
flicts and tunmltuous scenes of life, 
armed by those good principles which 
her child has received from maternal 
care and love. 

If we draw within the circle of our 
contemplation the mothers of a civilized 
nation, what do we see? We behold so 
many artificers working, not on frail 
and perishable matter, but on the im- 
mortal miiul, moulding and fashioning 
beings who are to exist for ever. We 
applaud the artist whose skill and ge- 
nius present the mimic man upon the 
canvas; we admire and celebrate the 
sculptor who works out that same image 
in enduring marble; but how insignifi- 
cant are these achievements, though the 
highest and the fairest in all the de- 
partments of art, in comparison with 
the great vocation of human mothers! 
They work, not upon the canvas that 
shall perish, or the marble that shall 
crumble into dust, but upon nund, upon 
spirit, which is to last for ever, and which 
is to bear, for good or evil, throughout 
its duration, the impress of a mother's 
plastic hand. 

I have already expressed the opinion, 
which all allow to be correct, that our 
security for the duration of the free 
institutions which bless our country 
depends upon habits of virtue and the 
prevalence of knowledge and of educa- 
tion. tThe attainment of knowledge 
does not comprise all which is contained 
in the larger term of education. The 
feelings are to be disciplined; the pas- 
sions are to be restrained ; true and 
worthy motives are to be inspired; a 
profound religious feeling is to be in- ! 
stilled, and pure morality inculcated, ^ 
under all circumstances. . All this is 
comprised in education. Mothers who 
are faithful to this great duty will tell 
their children, that neither in political 
nor in any other concerns of life can 
man ever witlnlraw himself from the 
perpetual obligations of conscience and 
of duty; that in every act, whetlier pub- 



480 



ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 



He or private, he incurs a just responsi- 
bility; and that in no condition is he 
warranted in trifling with important 
rights and obligations. They will im- 
press upon their children the truth, that 
the exercise of the elective franchise is 
a social duty, of as solemn a nature as 
man can be called to perform; that a 
man may not innocently trifle with his 
vote; that every free elector is a trustee, 
as well for others as himself; and that 
every man and every measure he sup- 
ports has an important bea ing on the 
interests of others, as well as on his 
own. It is in the inculcation of high 
and pure morals such as these, that, in 
a free republic, woman performs her 
sacred duty, and fulfils her destiny. 
The French, as you know, are remark- 
able for their fondness for sententious 
phrases, in which much meaning is con- 



densed into a small space. I noticed 
lately, on the title-page of one of the 
books of popular instruction in France, 
this motto: "Pour instruction on the 
heads of the people! you owe them that 
baptism." And, certainly, if there be 
any duty which may be described by a 
reference to that great institute of re- 
ligion, — a duty approaching it in im- 
portance, perhaps next to it in obliga- 
tion, — it is this. 

I know you hardly expect me to ad- 
dress you on the popular political topics 
of the day. You read enough, you hear 
quite enough, on those subjects. You 
expect me only to meet you, and to 
tender my profound thanks for this 
marked proof of your regard, and will 
kindly receive the assurances with which 
I tender to you, on parting, my affec- 
tionate respects and best wishes. 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



A SPEECH MADE IN FANEUIL HALL, ON THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER, 1842, AT 
A PUBLIC RECEPTION GIVEN TO MR. WEBSTER, ON HIS RETURN TO 
BOSTON, AFTER THE NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



[On the accession of General Harrison to 
the Presidency of the United States, on the 
4tli of March," 1841, Mr. Webster was called 
to the otfice of Secretary of State, in which, 
after the President's untimely death, he con- 
tinned under Mr. Tyler for about two years. 
The relations of the country with Great 
Britain were at that time in a very critical 
position. The most important and difficult 
subject which ensjaged the attention of the 
government, while he filled the Department 
of State, was the negotiation of the treaty 
with Great Britain, which was signed at 
Washington on the !Hh of August, 1842. 
The other members of General Harrison's 
Cabinet having resigned their places in the 
autumn of 1841, discontent was felt by some 
of their friends, that Mr. Webster should 
have consented to retain his. But as Mr. 
Tyler continued to place entire confidence 
in Mr. Webster's administration of the De- 
partment of State, the great importance of 
pursuing a steady line of policy in reference 
to foreign affairs, and especially the liope 
of averting a rupture with England by an 
honorable settlement of our difficulties with 
that country, induced Mr. Webster to re- 
main at his post. 

On occasion of a visit made by him to 
Boston, after the adjournment of (^ongress, 
in August, 1842, a miinber of his friends 
were desirous of manifesting tiu'ir sense of 
the services which he had rendered to the 
country by pursuing this course. A pub- 
lic meeting of citizens was accordingly held 
in Faneuil Hall, on the ;30th of Septen)ber, 
1842. At this meeting the following speech 
was made.] 

I KNOW not how it is, Mr. Mayor, but 

there is something in the echoes of tliese 
walls, or in this sea of upturned faces 



which I behold before me, or in the 
genius that always hovers over this 
place, fanning ardent and patriotic feel- 
ing by every motion of its wings, — I 
know not how it is, but there is some- 
thing that excites me strangely, deeply, 
before I even begin to speak. It cannot 
be doubted that this salutation and 
greeting from my fellow-citizens of Bos- 
ton is a tribute dear to my heart. Bos- 
ton is indeed my home, my cherished 
home. It is now more than twenty- 
five years since I came to it with my 
family, to pursue, here in this enlight- 
ened metropolis, those objects of pro- 
fessional life for which my studies and 
education were designed to fit me. It is 
twenty years since 1 was invited by the 
citizens of Boston to take upon myself 
an office of public trust in their service. ^ 
It gives me infinite pleasure to see here 
to-day, among tliose who hold the seats 
yielded to such as are more advanced in 
life, not a few of the gentlemen who 
were earnestly instrumental in inducing 
me to enter upon a course of life wholly 
unexpected, and to devote myself to the 
service of the public. 

Wlienever the duties of public life; 
have withdrawn me from this home, I 
have felt it, nevertheless, to be the at- 
tractive spot to whidi all local affection 
tended. And now that the progress of 

1 The office of Representative in Congress. 



31 



482 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



time must shortly bring about the pe- 
riod, if it should not be hastened by the 
progress of events, when the duties of 
public life shall yield to the influences of 
advancing years, I cherish no hope more 
precious, than to pass here in these asso- 
ciations and among these friends what 
may remain to me of life ; and to leave 
in the midst of you, fellow-citizens, par- 
taking of your fortunes, whether for 
good or for evil, those who bear my 
name, and inherit my blood. 

The Mayor has alluded, very kindly, 
to the exertions which I have made 
since I have held a position in the Cabi- 
net, and especially to the results of the 
negotiation in which I have been recently 
engaged. I hope, fellow-citizens, that 
something has been done which may 
prove permanently useful to the public. 
I have endeavored to do something, and 
I hope my endeavors have not been in 
vain. I have had a hard summer's 
work, it is true, but I am not wholly 
unused to hard work. I have had some 
anxious days, I have spent some sleep- 
less nights; but if the results of my 
efforts shall be approved by the commu- 
nity, I am richly compensated. My 
other days will be the happier, and my 
other nights will be given to a sweeter 
repose. 

It was an object of the highest na- 
tional importance, no doubt, to disperse 
the clouds which threatened a storm be- 
tween England and America. For sev- 
eral years past there has been a class of 
questions open between the two coun- 
tries, which have not always threatened 
war, but which have prevented the peo- 
ple from being assured of permanent 
peace. 

His Honor the Mayor has paid a just 
tribute to that lamented personage, by 
whom, in 1841, I was called to the place 
I now occupy; and although. Gentle- 
men, I know it is in very bad taste to 
speak much of one's self, yet here, 
among my friends and neighbors, I wish 
to say a word or two on subjects in 
which I am concerned. With the late 
President Harrison I had contracted an 
acquaintance while we were both mem- 
bers of Congress, and I had an opportu- 



nity of renewing it afterwards in his 
own house, and elsewhere. I have made 
no exhibition or boast of the confidence 
which it was his pleasure to repose in 
me; but circumstances, hardly worthy 
of serious notice, have rendered it not 
improper for me to say on this occasion, 
that as soon as President Harrison was 
elected, without, of course, one word 
from me, he wrote to me inviting me to 
take a place in his Cabinet, leaving to 
me the choice of that place, and asking 
my advice as to the persons that should 
fill every other place in it. He ex- 
pressed rather a wish that I should take 
the administration of the treasury, be- 
cause, as he was pleased to say, I had 
devoted myself with success to the ex- 
amination of the questions of currency 
and finance, and he felt that the wants 
of the country, — the necessities of the 
country, on the great subjects of cur- 
rency and finance, — were moving causes 
that produced the revolution which had 
placed him in the presidential chair. 

It so happened, Gentlemen, that my 
preference was for another place, — for 
that which I have now the honor to fill. 
I felt all its responsibilities; but I must 
say, that, with whatever attention I 
had considered the general questions of 
finance, I felt more competent and will- 
ing to undertake the duties of an office 
which did not involve the daily drudgeiy 
of the treasury. 

I was not disappointed. Gentlemen, in 
the exigency which then existed in our 
foreign relations. I was not unaware of 
all the difliculties which hung over us ; 
for although the whole of the danger was 
not at that moment developed, the cause 
of it was known, and it seemed as if an 
outbreak was inevitable. I allude now 
to that occurrence on the frontier of 
which the chairman has already spoken, 
vhich took place in the winter of 1811, 
the case of Alexander McLeod. 

A year or two before, the Canadian 
government had seen fit to authorize a 
military incursion, for a particular pur- 
pose, within the territory of the United 
States. That purpose was to destroy a 
steamboat, charged with being employed 
for hostile purposes against its foi-ces 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



483 



and the peaceable subjects of the crown. 
The act was avowed by the British gov- 
ernment at home as a public act. Alex- 
ander McLeod, a person who individ- 
ually could claim no regard or sympathy, 
happened to be one of the agents who, 
in a military character, performed the 
act of their sovereign. Coming into the 
United States some years after, he was 
arrested under a charge of homicide com- 
mitted in this act, and was held to trial 
as for a private felony. 

According to my apprehensions, a pro- 
ceeding of this kind was directly adverse 
to the well-settled doctrines of the pub- 
lic law. It could not but be received 
with lively indignation, not only by the 
British government, but among the peo- 
ple of England. It would be so re- 
ceived among us. If a citizen of the 
United States should as a military man 
receive an order of his government and 
obey it, (and he must either obey it or 
be hanged,) and should afterwards, in 
the territory of another power, which by 
that act he had offended, be tried for a 
violation of its law, as for a crime, and 
threatened with individual punishment, 
there is not a man in the United States 
who would not cry out for redress and 
for vengeance. Any elevated govern- 
ment, in a case like this, where one of 
its citizens, in the performance of his 
duty, incurs such menaces and danger, 
assumes the responsibility; any elevated 
government says, " The act was mine, — 
I am the man"; — "Adsum qui feci, in 
me convertite ferrum." 

Now, Gentlemen, information of the 
action of the British government on this 
subject was transmitted to us at Wash- 
ington within a few days after the instal- 
lation of General Harrison. I did not 
think that it was proper to make public 
then, nor is it important to say now, all 
that we knew on the subject; but I wfu 
tell you, in general terms, that if all that 
was known at Washington then had 
been divulged throughout the country, 
the value of the shipping interest of this 
city, and of every other interest con- 
nected with the commerce of the country, 
would have been depressed one half in 
six hours. I thought that the concus- 



sion might be averted, by holding up to 
view the principles of public law by 
which this question ought to be settled, 
and by demanding an ajx)logy for what- 
ever had been done against those princi- 
ples of public law by the British govern- 
ment or its officers. I thought we ought 
to put ourselves right in the tirst jilace, 
and then we could insist that they should 
do right in the next place. When in 
England, in the year IbS'J, I liad occa- 
sion to address a large and respectable 
assemblage; and allusion having been 
made to the relations of things between 
the two countries, I stated then, what I 
thought and now think, that in any con- 
troversy which should terminate in war 
between the United States and England, 
the only eminent advantage that either 
would po.s.sess would be found in the rec- 
titude of its cause. With the right on 
our side, we are a match for England; 
and with the right on her side, she is a 
match for us, or for anybody. 

We live in an age, fellow-citizen^ 
when there has been established among 
the nations a more elevated tribunal than 
ever before existed on earth ; I mean the 
tribunal of the enlightened public opin- 
ion of the world. Governments cannot 
go to war now, either with or against 
the consent of their own subjects or peo- 
ple, without the reprobation of other 
states, unless for grounds and reasons 
justifying them in the general judgment 
of mankind. The judgment of civiliza- 
tion, of commerce, and of that heavenly 
light that beams over Christendom, 
restrains men, congresses, parliaments, 
princes, and people from gratifying the 
inordinate love of ambition through the 
bloody scenes of war. It has been wisely 
said, and it is true, that every settle- 
ment of national differences between 
Christian states by fair negotiation, 
without resort to arms, is a new illus- 
tration and a new proof of the benign 
influence of the Christian faith. 

With regard to the terms of this 
treaty, and in relation to the other sub- 
jects connected with it, it is somewhat 
awkward for me to speak, because the 
documents connected with them have 
not been made public by authority. But 



/ 



484 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



I persuade myself, that, when the whole 
shall be calmly considered, it will be 
seen that there was throughout a fervent 
disposition to maintain the interest and 
honor of the country, united with a 
proper regard for the preservation of 
peace between us and the greatest com- 
mercial nation of the world. 

Gentlemen, while I receive these com- 
mendations which you have bestowed, I 
have an agreeable duty to perform to 
others. In the first place, I have great 
pleasure in bearing testimony to the in- 
telligent interest manifested by the Pres- 
ident of the United States, under whose 
authority, of course, I constantly acted 
throughout the negotiation, and his sin- 
cere and anxious desire that it might re- 
sult successfully. I take great pleasure 
in acknowledging here, as I will ac- 
knowledge everyw^here, my obligations 
to him for the unbroken and steady con- 
fidence reposed in me through the whole 
progress of an affair not unimportant to 
the country, and infinitely important to 
my own reputation. 

A negotiator disparaged, distrusted, 
treated with jealousy by his own gov- 
ernment, would be indeed a very unequal 
match for a cool and sagacious represent- 
ative of one of the proudest and most 
powerful monarchies of Europe, possess- 
ing in the fullest extent the confidence 
of his government, and authorized to 
bind it in concerns of the greatest im- 
portance. I shall never forget the frank- 
ness and generosity with which, after a 
full and free interchange of suggestions 
upon the subject, I was told by the Pres- 
ident that on my shoulders rested the 
responsibility of the negotiation, and on 
my discretion and judgment should rest 
the lead of every measure. I desire also 
to speak here of the hearty co-operation 
rendered every day by the other gentle- 
men connected with the administration, 
from every one of whom I received im- 
portant assistance. I speak with satis- 
faction, also, of the useful labors of all 
the Commissioners, although I need 
hardly say here, what has been already 
said officially, that the highest respect is 
due to the Commissioners from Maine 
and Massachusetts for their faithful ad- 



herence to the rights of their own States, 
mingled with a cordial co-operation in 
what was required by the general inter- 
ests of the United States. And T hope 
I shall not be considered as trespassing 
on this occasion, if I speak of the happy 
selection made by England of a person 
to represent her government on this oc- 
casion,^ — a thorough Englishman, un- 
derstanding and appreciating the great 
objects and interests of his own govern- 
ment, of large and liberal views, and of 
such standing and weight of character 
at home, as to impress a feeling of ap- 
probation of his course upon both gov- 
ernment and people. He was fully ac- 
quainted with the subject, and always, 
on all occasions, as far as his allegiance 
and duty permitted, felt and manifested 
good-will towards this country. 

Aside from the question of the boun- 
dary, there were other important subjects 
to be considered, to which I know not 
whether this is a proper occasion to al- 
lude. When the results of the negotia- 
tion shall be fully before the public, it 
will be seen that these other questions 
have not been neglected, questions of 
great moment and importance to the 
country ; and then I shall look with con- 
cern, but with faith and trust, for the 
judgment of that country upon them. 
It is but just to take notice of a very im- 
portant act, intended to provide for such 
cases as McLeod's, for which the country 
is indebted to the Whig majorities in the 
two houses of Congress, acting upon 
the President's recommendation. Events 
showed the absolute necessity of 'remov- 
ing into the national tribunals questions 
involving the peace and honor of the 
United States. 

There yet remain. Gentlemen, several 
other subjects still unsettled with Eng- 
land. First, there is that concerning 
the trade between the United States and 
the possessions of England, on this con- 
tinent and in the West Indies. It has 
been my duty to look into that subject, 
and to keep the run of it, as we say, 
from the arrangement of 1829 and 1830, 
until the present time. That arrange- 
ment was one unfavorable to the ship- 
1 Lord Ashburton. 



RECErXION AT BOSTON. 



485 



ping interests of the United States, and 
especially so to the New England States. 
To adjust these relations is an impor- 
tant subject, either for diplomatic nego- 
tiation, or the consideration of Congress. 
One or both houses of Congress, indeed, 
have already called upon the proper de- 
partment for a leport upon the opera- 
tions of that arrangement, and a com- 
mittee of the House of Kepresentatives 
luis made a report, showing that some 
adjustment of these relations is of vital 
importance to the future prosperity of 
our navigating interests. 

There is another question, somewhat 
more remote; that of the Northwest 
lioundary, where the possessions of the 
two countries touch each other upon the 
Pacific. There are evident jHiblic rea- 
sons why that question should be settled 
before the country becomes peopled. 

There are also, Gentlemen, many open 
questions respecting our relations with 
other governments. Upon most of the 
other States of this continent, citizens 
of the United States have claims, with 
regard to which the delays already in- 
curred have caused great injustice; and 
it becomes the government of the United 
States, by a calm and dignified course, 
and a deliberate and vigorous tone of 
administration of public affairs, to se- 
cure prompt justice to our citizens in 
these quarters. 

I am here to-day as a guest. I was 
invited by a number of highly valued 
personal and political friends to pailake 
with them of a public dinner, for the 
purpose of giving them an opportunity 
to pass the usual greeting of friends 
upon my return ; of testifying their re- 
spect for my public services heretofore ; 
and of exchanging congratulations upon 
the results of the late negotiation. It 
was at my instance that the proposed 
dinner took the form of this meeting, 
and, instead of meeting them at the 
festive board, I agreed to meet them, 
and those who chose to meet me with 
them, here. Still, the general character 
of the meeting seems not to be changed. 
I am here as a guest; here to receive 
greetings and salutations for jiarticular 
services, and not under any intimation 



or expectation that I should address the 
gentlemen who invited me or others 
here, upon subjects not suggested by 
themselves. It would not become me 
to use the occasion for any more general 
purpose. Because, although I have a 
design, at some time not far distant, to 
make known my sentiments upon po- 
litical matters generally, and upon the 
political state of the country and that 
of its several parties, yet I know very 
well that I should be tresj^assing beyond 
the bounds of politeness and propriety, 
should I enter upon this wiiole wide 
field now. I will not enter upon it, be- 
cause the gentlemen who invited me en- 
tertain on many of these topics views 
different from my own, and they would 
very properly say, that they came here 
to meet Mr. "Webster, to congratulate 
him upon the late negotiation, and to 
exchange sentiments upon matters about 
which they agreed with him; and that 
it was not in very correct taste for him 
to use the occasion to express opinions 
upon other subjects on which they differ. 
It is on that account that 1 shall forbear 
discussing political subjects at large, and 
shall endeavor to confine my remarks to 
what may be considered as affecting my- 
self, directly or indirectly. 

The Maj'or was kind enough to say, 
that having, in his judgment, performed 
the duties of my own department to the 
satisfaction of my country, it might be 
left to me to take care of my own honor 
and reputation. I suppose that he meant 
to say, that in the present distracted 
state of the Whig party, and among the 
contrarietj' of opinions that prevail (if 
there be a contrariety of opinion) as to 
the course proper for me to ^^m'sue, the 
decision of that question might be left 
to myself. I am exactly of his ojiinion. 
I am quite of opinion that on a question 
touching my own honor and character, 
as 1 am to bear the consequences of the 
decision, I had a great deal better be 
trusted to make it. No man feels more 
highly the advantage of the advice of 
friends than I do; but on a question so 
delicate and important as that, I like to 
choose myself tlit; friends who are to 
give me advice; and upon this subject, 



486 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



Gentlemen, I shall leave you as enlight- 
ened as I found you. 

I give no pledges, I make no intima- 
tions, one way or the other; and I will 
be as free, when this day closes, to act 
as duty calls, as I was when the davra of 
this day — (Here Mr. Webster was inter- 
rupted by tremendous applause. When 
silence was restored he continued :) 

There is a delicacy in the case, be- 
cause there is always delicacy and regret 
when one feels obliged to differ from his 
friends; but there is no embarrassment. 
There is no embarrassment, because, if 
I see the path of duty before me, I have 
that within me which will enable me to 
pursue it, and throw all embarrassment 
to the winds. A public man has no oc- 
casion to be embarrassed, if he is honest. 
Himself and his feelings should be to 
him as nobody and as nothing; the in- 
terest of his country must be to him as 
every thing ; he must sink what is per- 
sonal to himself, making exertions for 
his country; and it is his ability and 
readiness to do this which are to mark 
him as a great or as a little man in time 
to come. 

There were many persons in Septem- 
ber, 1841, who found great fault with my 
remaining in the President's Cabinet. 
You know, Gentlemen, that twenty 
years of honest, and not altogether un- 
distinguished service in the Whig cause, 
did not save me from an outpouring 
of wrath, which seldom proceeds from 
Whig pens and Whig tongues against 
anybody. I am. Gentlemen, a little 
hard to coax, but as to being driven, 
that is out of the question. I chose to 
trust my own judgment, and thinking I 
was at a post where I was in the service 
of the country, and could do it good, I 
stayed there. And I leave it to you to- 
day to say, I leave it to my country to 
say, whether the country would have 
been better off: if I had left also. I 
have no attachment to ofRce. I have 
tasted of its sweets, but I have tasted of 
its bitterness. I am content with what 
I have achieved ; I am more ready to 
rest satisfied with what is gained, tlian 
to nm the risk of doubtful efforts for 
new acquisition. 



I suppose I ought to pause here. (Cries 
of "Go on I") I ought, perhaps, to 
allude to nothing more, and I will not 
allude to any thing further than it may 
be supposed to concern myself, directly 
or by implication. Gentlemen, and Mr. 
Mayor, a most respectable convention 
of Whig delegates met in this place a 
few days since, and passed very imj^or- 
tant resolutions. There is no set of gen- 
tlemen in the Commonwealth, so far as 
I know them, who have more of my re- 
spect and regard. They are Whigs, but 
they are no better AVhigs than I am. 
They have served the country in the 
Whig ranks; so have I, quite as long as 
most of them, though perhaps with less 
ability and success. Their resolutions 
on political subjects, as representing 
the Whigs of the State, are entitled 
to respect, so far as they were author- 
ized to express opinion on those sub- 
jects, and no further. They were sent 
hither, as I siq^posed, to agree upon can- 
didates for the offices of Governor and 
Lieutenant-Governor for the support of 
the AVhigs of Massachusetts; and if they 
had any authority to speak in the name 
of the AVliigs of Massachusetts to any 
other purport or intent, I have not been 
informed of it. I feel very little dis- 
turbed by any of those proceedings, of 
whatever nature ; but some of them ap- 
pear to me to have been inconsiderate 
and hasty, and their point and bearing 
can hardly be mistaken. I notice, among 
others, a declaration made, in behalf of 
all the AVhigs of this Commonwealth, of 
"a full and final separation from the 
President of the United States." If 
those gentlemen saw fit to express their 
own sentiments to that extent, there was 
no objection. AVhigs speak their senti- 
ments everywhere; but whether they 
may assume a privilege to speak for 
others on a point on which those others 
have not given them authority, is an- 
other question. I am a AA'^hig, I always 
have been a AAHiig, and I always will be 
one; and if there are any who would 
turn me out of the pale of that com- 
munion, let them see who will get out 
first. I am a Massachusetts Whig, a 
Faneuil Hall Whig, having breathed 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



487 



this air for five-and-twenty years, and 
meaning to breathe it as long as my life 
is spared. I am ready to submit to all 
decisions of Whig conventions on sub- 
jects on which they are authorized to 
make decisions ; I know that great party 
good and great public good can only be 
so obtained. But it is quite another 
question whether a set of gentlemen, 
however respectable they may be as in- 
dividuals, shall have the power to bind 
me on matters which I have not agreed 
to submit to their decision at all. 

" A full and final separation " is de- 
clared between the Whig party of Mas- 
sachusetts and the President. That is 
the text : it requires a commentary. 
What does it mean? The President of 
the United States has three years of his 
term of office yet unexpired. Does this 
declaration mean, then, that during 
those three years all the measures of his 
administration are to be opposed by the 
great body of the Whig party of Mas- 
sachusetts, whether they are right or 
wrong? There are great public inter- 
ests which require his attention. If the 
President of the United States should 
attempt, by negotiation, or by earnest 
and serious application to Congress, to 
make some change in the present ar- 
rangements, such as should be of service 
to those interests of navigation which 
are concerned in the colonial trade, are 
the Whigs of Massachusetts to give him 
neither aid nor succor? If the Presi- 
dent of the United States shall dii-ect 
the proper department to review the 
whole commercial policy of the United 
States, in respect of reciprocity in the 
indirect trade, to which so much of our 
tonnage is now sacrificed, if the amend- 
ment of this policy shall be undertaken 
by him, is there such a separation be- 
tween him and the Whigs of Massachu- 
setts as shall lead them and their repre- 
sentatives to oppose it. Do you know 
(there are gentlemen now here who do 
know) that a large proi^ortion, I rather 
think more than one half, of the carry- 
ing trade between tlie empire of Brazil 
and the United Stat<?s is enjoyed by ton- 
nage from the North of Europe, in con- 
sequence of this ill-considered principle 



with regard to reciprocity. You might 
just as well admit them into the coast- 
ing trade. By this arrangement, we 
take the bread out of our children's 
mouths and give it to strangers. I ap- 
peal to you. Sir, (turning to Captain 
Benjamin Rich, who sat by him,) is not 
this true? (Mr. Rich at once replied, 
True !) Is every measure of this sort, 
for the relief of such abuses, to be re- 
jected? Are we to suffer ourselves to 
remain inactive under every grievance 
of this kind until these three years shall 
expire, and through as many more as 
shall pass until Providence shall bless us 
with more power of doing good than we 
have now? 

Again, there are now in this State 
persons employed under government, 
allowed to be pretty good Whigs, still 
holding their offices; collectors, district 
attorneys, postmasters, marshals. AVhat 
is to become of them in tliis separation? 
Which side are they to fall? Are they 
to resign? or is this resolution to be 
held up to government as an invitation 
or a provocation to turn them out? Our 
distinguished fellow-citizen, who, with 
so much credit to himself and to his 
country, represents our government in 
England, 1 — is he expected to come 
home, on this separation, and yield his 
place to his predecessor,'-^ or to some- 
body else? And in regard to the indi- 
vidual who addresses you, — what do 
his brother Whigs mean to do with 
him? Where do they mean to place 
me? Generally, when a divorce takes 
place, the parties divide their children. 
I am anxious to know where, in the 
case of this divorce, I shall fall. This 
declaration announces a full and final 
separation between the Whigs of Ma.s- 
sachusetts and the President. If I 
choose to remain in the President's 
councils, do these gentlemen mean to 
say that I cease to be a Massachusetts 
Whig? I am quite ready to put that 
question to the people of Massachu- 
setts. 

I would not treat this matter too light- 
ly, nor yet too seriously. I know very 

1 Mr. Edward Everett. 

2 Mr. Andrew Stevenson. 



488 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



•well that, when public bodies get to- 
gether, resolutions can never be con- 
sidered with any degree of deliberation. 
They are passed as they are presented. 
Who the honorable gentlemen were who 
drew this resolution I do not know. I 
suspect that they had not much mean- 
ing in it, and that they have not very 
clearly defined what little meaning they 
had. They were angry; they were re- 
sentful ; they had drawn up a string of 
charges against the President, — a bill 
of indictment, as it were, — and, to 
close the whole, they introduced this 
declaration about " a full and final sep- 
aration." I could not read this, of 
course, without perceiving that it had 
an intentional or unintentional bearing 
on my position ; and therefore it was 
proper for me to allude to it here. 

Gentlemen, there are some topics on 
which it has been my fortune to differ 
from my old friends. They may be 
right on these topics ; very probably 
they are ; but I am sure / am right in 
maintaining my opinions, such as they 
are, when I have formed them honestly 
and on deliberation. There seems to 
me to be a disposition to postpone all 
attempts to do good to the country to 
some future and uncertain day. Yet 
there is a Whig majority in each house 
of Congress, and I am of opinion that 
now is the time to accomplish what yet 
remains to be accomplished. Some gen- 
tlemen are for suffering the present 
Congress to expire; another Congress 
to be chosen, and to expire also; a 
third Congress to be chosen, and then, 
if there shall be a Whig majority in 
both branches, and a Whig President, 
they propose to take up highly impor- 
tant and pressing subjects. These are 
persons. Gentlemen, of more sanguine 
temperament than myself. "Confi- 
dence," says Lord Chatham, "is a 
plant of slow growth in an old bosom." 
He referred to confidence in men, but 
the remark is as true of confidence in 
predictions of future occun-ences. Many 
Whigs see before us a prospect of more 
power, and a better chance to serve the 
country, than we now possess. Far 
along in the horizon, they discern mild 



skies 'and halcyon seas, while fogs and 
darkness and mists blind other sons of 
humanity from beholding all this bright 
vision. It was not so that we accom- 
plished our last great victory, by simply 
brooding over a glorious Whig future. 
We succeeded in 1840, but not without 
an effort ; and I know that nothing but 
union, cordial, sympathetic, fraternal 
union, can prevent the party that 
achieved that success from renewed 
prostration. It is not, — I would say 
it in the presence of the world, — it is 
not by premature and partial, by pro- 
scriptive and denunciatory proceedings, 
that this great Whig family can ever be 
kept together, or that Whig counsels 
can maintain their ascendency. This 
is perfectly plain and obvious. It was 
a party, from the first, made up of dif- 
ferent opinions and jsrinciples, of gen- 
tlemen of every political complexion, 
uniting to make a change in the admin- 
istration. They were men of strong 
State-rights principles, men of strong 
federal principles, men of extreme tar- 
iff, and men of extreme anti-tariff 
notions. What could be expected of 
such a party, unless animated by a 
spirit of conciliation and hai-mony, of 
union and sympathy? Its true policy 
was, from the first, and must be, un- 
less it meditates its own destruction, to 
heal, and not to widen, the breaches that 
existed in its ranks. It consented to be- 
come united in order to save the country 
from a continuation of a ruinous course 
of measures. And the lesson taught by 
the whole history of the revolution of 
1840 is the momentous value of concilia- 
tion, friendship, sympathy, and union. 

Gentlemen, if I understand the mat- 
ter, there were four or five gi-eat objects 
in that revolution. And, in the first 
place, one great object was that of at- 
tempting to secure permanent peace be- 
tween this country and England. For 
although, as I have said, we were not 
actually at war, we were subjected to 
perpetual agitations, which disturb the 
interests of the country almost as much 
as war. They break in upon men's pur- 
suits, and render them incapable of cal- 
cidating or judging of their chances of 



RECErTION AT BOSTON. 



489 



success in any proposed line or course 
of business. A settled peace was one 
of the objects of that revolution. I am 
glad if you think this is accomplished. 

The next object of that revolution 
was an increase of revenue. It was no- 
torious that, for the several last years, 
the expenditures for the administration 
of government had exceeded the re- 
ceii>ts; in other words, government had 
been nmning in debt, and in the mean 
time the operation of the compromise 
act was still further and faster dimin- 
ishing the revenue itself. A sound reve- 
nue was one of those objects; and that 
it has been accomplished, our thanks 
and praise are due to the Congress that 
has just adjourned. 

A third object was protection, protec- 
tion incidental to revenue, or consequent 
upon revenue. Now as to that, Gentle- 
men, much has been done, and I hope 
it will be found that enough has been 
done. And for this, too, all the Whigs 
who supported that measure in Congress 
are entitled to high praise : they receive 
mine, and I hope they do yours; it is 
right that they should. But let us be 
just. The French rhetoricians have a 
maxim, that there is nothing beautiful 
that is not true; I am afraid that some 
of our jubilant oratory would hardly 
stand the test of this canon of criticism. 
It is not true that a majority, composed 
of Whigs, could be found, in either 
house, in favor of the tariff bill. More 
than tliirty Whigs, many of them gen- 
tlemen of lead and influence, voted 
against the law, from beginning to end, 
on all questions, direct and indirect; 
and it is not pleasant to consider what 
would have been the state of the coun- 
try, the treasury, and the government 
itself, at this moment, if the law act- 
ually passed, for revenue and for pro- 
tection, had depended on Whig votes 
alone. After all, it passed the House 
of Representatives by a single vote; and 
there is a good deal of eclat about that 
single vote. But did not every gentle- 
man who voted for it take the responsi- 
bility and deserve the honor of that 
single vote? Several gentlemen in the 
opposition thus befriended the bill ; thus 



did our neighbor from the Middlesex Dis- 
trict of this State, 1 voting for tlie tariff 
out and out, as steadily as did my Jion- 
ored friend, the member from this city.* 
We hear nothing of his " coming to the 
rescue," and yet he had that one vote, and 
held the tariff in his hand as absolutely 
as if he had had a presidential veto! 
And how was it in the Senate? It 
passed by one vote again there, and 
could not have passed at all without 
the assistance of the two Senators from 
Pennsylvania, of Mr. Williams of 
Maine, and of Mr. Wright of New 
York. Let us then admit the truth 
(and a la^vyer may do that when it 
helps his case), that it was necessary 
that a large portion of the other party 
should come to the assistance of the 
Whigs to enable them to cany the tariff, 
and that, if this assistance had not been 
rendered, the tariff must have failed. 

And this is a very important truth for 
New England. Her children, looking 
to their manufactures and industry for 
their livelihood, must rejoice to find the 
tariff, so necessary to these, no party 
question. Can they desire, can they 
wish, that such a great object as the 
protection of industry should become a 
party object, rising with party, and with 
the failure of the party that supported 
it going to the grave? This is a public, 
a national question. The tariff ought 
to be inwrought in the sentiments of all 
parties; and although I hoj^e that the 
pre-eminence of Whig principles may 
be eternal, I wish to take bond and se- 
curity, that we may make the protec- 
tion of domestic industry more durable 
even than Whig supremacy. 

Let us be true in another respect. 
This tariff has accomplished much, and 
is an honor to the men who passed it. 
But in regard to protection it has only 
restored the country to tlie state in which 
it was before the compromise act, and 
from which it fell under the operation 
of that act. It has rejiaired the conse- 
quences of that measure, and it has done 
no more. I may speak of the compro- 
mise act. My tui-n has come now. No 

1 Mr. Paniicnter. 

2 Mr. U. C. Wiiithrop. 



490 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



measure ever passed Congress during my 
connection with that body that caused 
me so much grief and mortification. It 
was passed by a few friends joining the 
whole host of the enemy. I have heard 
much of the motives of that act. The 
personal motives of those that passed 
the act were, I doubt not, pure; and all 
public men are supposed to act from 
pure motives. But if by motives are 
meant the objects proposed by the act 
itself, and expressed in it, then I say, if 
those be the motives alluded to, they are 
worse than the act itself. The principle 
was bad, the measure was bad, the conse- 
quences were bad. Every circumstance, 
as well as every line of the act itself, shows 
that the design was to impose upon legis- 
lation a restraint that the Constitution 
had not imposed; to insert in the Con- 
stitution a new prohibitory clause, pro- 
viding that, after the year 1842, no rev- 
enue should be collected except according 
to an absurd horizontal system, and 
none exceeding twenty per cent. It was 
then pressed through under the great 
emergency of the public necessities. But 
I may now recur to what I then said, 
namely, that its principle was false and 
dangerous, and that, when its time came, 
it would rack and convulse our system. 
I said we should not get rid of it with- 
out throes and spasms. Has not this 
been as pi-edicted? We have felt the 
spasms and throes of this convulsion; 
but we have at last gone through them, 
and begin to breathe again. It is some- 
thing that that act is at last got rid of ; 
and the present tariff is deserving in 
this, that it is specific and discriminat- 
ing, that it holds to common sense, and 
rejects and discards the principles of the 
compromise act, I hope for ever. 

Another great and principal object of 
the revolution of 1810 was a restoration 
of the currency. Our troubles did not 
begin with want of money in the treas- 
ury, or under the sapping and mining 
operation of the compromise act. They 
are of earlier date. The trouble and 
distress of the country began with the 
currency in 1833, and broke out with 
new severity in 1837. Other causes of 
difficulty have since arisen, but the first 



great shock was a shock on the cur- 
rency; and from the effect of this the 
country is not yet relieved. I hope the 
late act may yield competent revenue, 
and am sure it will do much for protec- 
tion. But until you provide a better 
currency, so that you may have a uni- 
versal one, of equal and general value 
throughout the land, I am hard to be 
persuaded that we shall see the day of 
our former prosperity. Currency, ac- 
credited currency, and easy and cheap 
internal exchanges, — until these things 
be obtained, depend ui^on it, the coun- 
try will find no adequate relief. 

And now, fellow-citizens, I will say a 
word or two on the history of the trans- 
actions on this subject. At the special 
session of Congr^ess, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, Mr. Ewing, arranged a plan 
for a national bank. That plan was 
founded upon the idea of a large capital, 
furnished mainly by private subscrip- 
tions, and it included branches for local 
discounts. I need not advert. Gentle- 
men, to the circumstances under which 
this scheme was drawn up, and received, 
as it did, the approbation of the Presi- 
dent and Cabinet, as the best thing that 
could be done. I need not remind you, 
that he whom we had all agreed should 
hold the second place in the government 
had been called to the head of it. I 
need not say that he held opinions 
wholly different from mine on the sub- 
jects which now came before us. But 
those opinions were fixed, and therefore 
it was thought the part of wisdom and 
prudence not to see how strong a case 
might be made against the President, 
but to get along as well as we might. 
With such views, Mr. Ewing presented 
his plan to Congress. As most persons 
will remember, the clause allowing the 
bank to establish branches provided that 
those branches might be placed in any 
State which should give its consent. I 
have no idea that there is any necessity 
for such a restriction. I believe Con- 
gress has the power to establish the 
branches without, as well as with, the 
consent of the States. But that clause, 
at most, was theoretical. I never could 
find anybody who could show any prac- 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



491 



tical mischief resulting from it. Its 
opponents -svent upon the theory, which 
I do not exactly accord with, that an 
omission to exercise a power, in any 
case, amounts to a surrender of that 
power. At any rate, it was the best 
thing that could be done ; and its rejec- 
tion was the commencement of the dis- 
astrous dissensions between the Presi- 
dent and Congress. 

Gentlemen, it was exceedingly doubt- 
ful at the time when that plan was 
prepared whether the capital would be 
subscribed. But we did what we could 
about it. We asked the opinion of the 
leading merchants of the principal com- 
mercial cities. They were invited to 
Washington to confer with us. They 
expressed doubts whether the bank could 
be put into operation, but they expressed 
hopes also, and they pledged themselves 
to do the best they could to advance it. 
And as the commercial interests were in 
its favor, as the administration was new 
and fresh and popular, and the people 
were desirous to have something done, 
a great earnestness was felt that that 
bill should be tried. 

It was sent to the Senate at the Sen- 
ate's request, and by the Senate it was 
rejected. Another bill was reported in 
the Senate, without the provision requir- 
ing the consent of the States to branches, 
was discussed for six weeks or two 
months, and then could not pass even a 
Whig Seaiate. Here was the origin of 
distrust, disunion, and resentment. 

I will not pursue the unhappy narra- 
tive of the latter part of the session of 
ISil. Men had begun to grow excited 
and angry and resentful. I expressed 
the opinion, at an early period, to all 
those to whom I was entitled to speak, 
that it would be a great deal better to 
forbear further action at present. That 
opinion, as expressed to the two Whig 
Senators from ^Massachusetts, is before 
the public. I wished Congress to give 
time for consultation to take place, for 
harmony to be restored ; because I looked 
for no good, except from the united and 
harmonious action of all the branches 
of the Whig government. I suppose 
that counsel was not good, certainly it 



was not followed. I need not add the 
comment. 

This brings us, as far as concerns tlie 
questions of currency, to the last session 
of Congress. Early in that session the 
Secretary of the Treasury .sent in a j)lan 
of an exchequer. It met with little 
favor in either House, and therefore it 
is necessary for me, Gentlemen, lest the 
whole burden fall on otiiers, to say that 
it had my hearty, sincere, and entire 
approbation. Gentlemen, I hope that I 
have not manifested througii my public 
life a very overweening confidence in my 
own judgment, or a very unreasonable 
unwillingness to accept the views of 
others. But there are some subjects on 
which I feel entitled to pay some respect 
to my own opinion. The subject of cur- 
rency, Gentlemen, has been the study of 
my life. Thirty years ago, a little be- 
fore my entrance into the House of Rep- 
resentatives, the questions connected 
with a mixed currency, involving the 
proper relation of paper to specie, and 
the proper means of restricting an ex- 
cessive issue of paper, came to be dis- 
cussed by the most acute and well-disci- 
plined understandings in England in 
Parliament. At that time, during the 
suspension of specie payments by the 
bank, when paper was fifteen per cent 
below par, Mr. Vansittart had piresented 
his celebrated resolution, declaring that 
a bank-note was still worth the value 
exjiressed on its face; that the bank- 
note had not depreciated, but that the 
price of bullion had risen. Lord Liver- 
pool and Lord Castlereagh espoused this 
view, as we know, and it was opposed 
by the close reasoning of Iluskisson, the 
powerful logic of Horner, and the prac- 
tical sagacity and connnon sense of Al- 
exander Baring, now Lord A.shburton. 
The study of those debates made me a 
bullionist. They convinced me that 
paper could not circulate safely in any 
country, any longer than it was imme- 
diately redeemable at the place of its 
issue. Coming into Congress the very 
next year, or the next but one after, and 
finding the finances of tlie country in a 
most deplorable condition, I tlion and 
ever after devoted myself, in preference 



492 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



to all other public topics, to the consid- 
eration of the questions relating to them. 
I believe I have read every thing of 
A'alue that has been published since on 
those questions, on either side of the 
Atlantic. I have studied by close obser- 
vation the laws of paper currency, as 
they have exhibited themselves in this 
and in other countries, from 1811 down 
to the present time. I have expressed 
my opinions at various times in Con- 
gress, and some of the predictions which 
I have made have not been altogether 
falsified by subsequent events. I must 
therefore be permitted, Gentlemen, with- 
out yielding to any flippant newspaper 
paragraph, or to the hasty ebullitions of 
debate in a public assembly, to say, that 
I believe the plan for an exchequer, as 
presented to Congress at its last session, 
is the bext measure, the only measure 
for the adoption of Congress and the 
trial of the people. I am ready to stake 
my reputation upon it, and that is all 
that I have to stake. I am ready to 
stake my reputation, that, if this Whig 
Congress will take that measure and 
give it a fair trial, within three years it 
will be admitted by the whole American 
people to be the most beneficial measure 
of any sort ever adopted in this country, 
the Constitution only excepted. 

I mean that they should take it as it 
was when it came from the Cabinet, not 
as it looked when the committees of 
Congress had laid their hands upon it. 
For when the committees of Congress 
had struck out the proviso respecting 
exchange, it was not worth a rush; it 
was not worth the parchment it would 
be engrossed upon. The great desire of 
this country is a general currency, a 
facility of exchange; a currency which 
shall be the same for you and for the 
people of Alabama and Louisiana, and 
a system of exchange which shall equal- 
ize credit between them and you, with 
the rapidity and facility with which 
steam conveys men and merchandise. 
That is what the country wants, what 
you want; and you have not got it. 
You have not got it, you cannot get it, 
but by some adequate provision of gov- 
ernment. Exchange, ready exchange. 



that will enable a man to turn his New 
Orleans means into money to-day, (as 
we have had in better times millions a 
year exchanged, at only three quarters 
of one per cent,) is what is wanted. 
How are we to obtain this? A Bank 
of the United States founded on a pri- 
vate subscription is out of the question. 
That is an obsolete idea. The country 
and the condition of things have changed. 
Suppose that a bank were chartered with 
a capital of fifty millions, to be raised 
by private subscription. Would it not 
be out of all possibility to find the 
money? Who would subscribe? What 
would you get for shares? And as for 
the local discount, do you wish it ? Do 
you, in State Street, wish that the na- 
tion should send millions of untaxed 
banking capital hither to inci'ease your 
discounts? What, then, shall we do? 
People who are waiting for power to 
make a Bank of the United States may 
as well postpone all attempts to benefit 
the country to the incoming of the 
Jews. 

What, then, shall we do? Let us 
turn to this plan of the exchequer, 
brought forward last year. It was as- 
sailed from all quarters. One gentle- 
man did say, I believe, that by some 
possibility some good might come out of 
it, but in general it met with a different 
opposition from every different class. 
Some said it would be a perfectly life- 
less machine, — that it was no system 
at all, — that it would do nothing, for 
good or evil; others thought that it had 
a great deal too much vitality, admit- 
ting that it would answer the purpose 
perfectly well for which it was designed, 
but fearing that it would increase the 
executive power: thus making it at once 
King Log and King Serpent. One party 
called it a ridiculous imbecility; the 
other, a dangerous giant, tluit might 
subvert the Constitution. These varied 
arguments, contradicting, if not i-efut- 
ing, one another, convinced me of one 
thing at least, — that the bill would not 
be adopted, nor even temperately and 
candidly considered. And it was not. 
In a manner quite unusual, it was dis- 
cussed, assailed, denounced, before it 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



493 



was allowed to take the course of refer- 
ence and examination. 

The difficulties we meet in carrying 
out our system of constitutional govern- 
ment are indeed extraordinary. The 
Constitution was intended as an instru- 
ment of great political good; but we 
sometimes so dispute its meaning, that 
we cannot use it at all. One man will 
not have a bank, without the power of 
local discount, against the consent of 
the States; for that, he insists, would 
break the Constitution. Another will 
not liave a bank with such a power, be- 
cause he thinks that would break the 
Constitution. A third will not have an- 
exchequer, with autliority to deal in 
exchanges, because that would increase 
executive influence, and so might break 
the Constitution. And between them 
all, we are like the boatman who, in the 
midst of rocks and currents and whirl- 
pools, will not pull one stroke for safety, 
lest he break his oar. Are we now look- 
ing for the time when we can charter a 
United States Bank with a large private 
subscription? When will that be? When 
confidence is restored. Are we, then, 
to do nothing to save the vessel from 
sinking, till the chances of the winds and 
waves have landed us on the shore? 
He is more sanguine than I am, who 
thinks that the time will soon come 
when the Whigs have more power to 
work effectually for the good of the 
country than they now have. The voice 
of patiiotism calls upon them not to 
postpone, but to act at this moment, at 
the very next session ; to make the best 
of their means, and to try. You say 
that the administration is responsible; 
why not, then, try the plan it has rec- 
ommended. If it fails, let the President 
bear the responsibility. If you will not 
try this plan, why not propose some- 
tliing else? 

Gentlemen, in speaking of events that 
liave happened, I ought to say, and will, 
since I am making a full and free com- 
munication, that there is no one of my 
age, and I am no longer very young, 
who has written or spoken more against 
the abuse and indiscreet use of tlie veto 
power than 1 have. And there is no | 



one whose opinions upon this subject 
are less clianged. I presume it is uni- 
versally known, that I have advised 
against the use of the veto power on 
every occasion when it has been used 
since I have been in the Cabinet. But 
1 am, nevertheless, not willing to join 
those who seem more desirous to make 
out a case against the President, than 
of serving their country to tiie cxtiait 
of their ability, vetoes notwithstanding. 
Indeed, at the close of the extra session, 
the received doctrine of many seenu'd to 
be, that they would undertake nothing 
until they could amend the Constitution 
so as to do away with this power. This 
was mere mockery. If we were now 
reforming the Constitution, we might 
wish for some, I do not say what, guards 
and restraints upon this power more 
than the Constitution at jJi'esent con- 
tains; but no convention would recom- 
mend striking it out altogether. Have 
not the people of New York lately 
amended their constitution, so as to re- 
quire, in certain legislative action, votes 
of two thirds? and is not this same re- 
striction in daily use in the national 
House of Representatives itself, in the 
case of suspension of the rules? This 
constitutional power, therefore, is no 
greater a restraint than this body im- 
poses on itself. But it is utterly liope- 
jess to look for such an amendment; 
who expects to live to see its day? And 
to give up all practical efforts, and to go 
on with a general idea that the Consti- 
tution mu.st be amended before any 
thing can be done, was, I will not say 
trifling, but treating the great necessities 
of the people as of quite too little impor- 
tance, 'i'his Congress accomplished, in 
this regard, nothing for the people. The 
exchequer plan which was submitted to 
it will accomjilish some of the objects of 
the people, and especially the Whig peo- 
ple. I am confident of it; 1 know it. 
When a mechanic makes a tool, an axe, 
a saw, or a plane, and knows that the 
temper is good and the parts are well 
pro])ortioned, he knows that it will an- 
swiT its purpose. And I know that this 
l)lan will answer its pui'[»)se. 

There are otiier objects whicli ought 



494 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 






not to be neglected, among which is one 
of such importance that I will not now 
pass it by; I mean, the mortifying state 
of the public credit of this country at 
this time. I cannot help thinking, that 
if the statesmen of a former age were 
among us, if Washington were here, if 
John Adams, and Hamilton, and Madi- 
son were here, they would be deeply- 
concerned and soberly thoughtful about 
the present state of the public credit of 
the country. In the position I fill, it 
becomes my duty to read, generally with 
pleasure, but sometimes with pain, com- 
munications from our public agents 
abroad. It is distressing to hear them 
speak of their distress at what they see 
and hear of the scorn and contumely 
with which the American character and 
American credit are treated abroad. 
Wliy, at this very time, we have a loan 
in the market, which, at the present 
rate of money and credit, ought to com- 
mand in Europe one hundred and twen- 
ty-five p>er cent. Can we sell a dollar 
of it? And how is it with the credit of 
our own Commonwealth? Does it not 
find itself affected in its credit by the 
general state of the credit of the coun- 
try ? Is there nobody ready to make a 
movement in this matter ? Is there not 
a man in our councils large enough, 
comprehensive enough in his views, to 
undertake at least to present this case 
before the American people, and thus 
do something to restore the public char- 
acter for morals and honesty? 

There are in the country some men 
who are indiscreet enough to talk of 
repudiation, — to advise their fellow- 
citizens to repudiate public debt. Does 
repudiation pay a debt ? Does it dis- 
charge the debtor ? Can it so modify a 
debt that it shall not be always binding, 
in law as well as in morals? No, Gen- 
tlemen ; repudiation does nothing but 
add a sort of disrepute to acknowledged 
inability. It is our duty, so far as is in 
our power, to rouse the public feeling 
on the subject; to maintain and assert 
the universal principles of law and jus- 
tice, and the importance of preserving 
public faith and credit. People say 
that the intelligent capitalists of Europe 



ought to distinguish between the United 
States government and the State gov- 
ernments. So they ought ; but. Gen- 
tlemen, what does all this amount to ? 
Does not the general government com- 
prise the same people who make up the 
State governments? May not these 
Europeans ask us how long it may be 
before the national councils will repudi- 
ate public obligations ? 

The doctrine of repudiation has in- 
flicted upon us a stain which we ought 
to feel worse than a wound; and the 
time has come when every man ought to 
address himself soberly and seriously to 
the correction of this great existing evil. 
I do not undertake to say what the Con- 
stitution allows Congress to do in the 
premises. I will only say, that if that 
great fund of the public domain prop- 
erly and in equity belongs, as is main- 
tained, to the States themselves, there 
are some means, by regular and consti- 
tutional laws, to enable and induce the 
States to save their own credit and the 
credit of the country. 

Gentlemen, I have detained you much, 
too long. I have wished to say, that, 
in my judgment, there remain certaiu 
important objects to engage our public 
and private attention, in the national 
affairs of the country. Tliese are, the 
settlement of the remaining questions 
between ourselves and England; the 
great questions relating to the reciproci- 
ty principle; those relating to colonial 
trade; the most absorbing questions of 
the currency, and those relating to the 
great subject of the restoration of the 
national character and the public faith; 
these are all objects to which I am will- 
ing to devote myself, both in public and in 
private life. I do not expect that much 
of public service remains to be done by 
me; but I am ready, for the promotion 
of these objects, to act with sober men 
of any party, and of all parties. I am 
ready to act with men who are free from 
tliat great danger that surrounds all men 
of all parties, — the danger that patriot- 
ism itself, warmed and heated in party 
contests, will run into partisanship. I 
believe that, among the sober men of 
this country, there is a growing desire 



RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 



495 



for more moderation of party feeling, 
more predominance of purely public 
considerations, more honest and general 
union of well-meaning men of all sides 
to uphold the institutions of the country 
and carry them forward. 



In the pursuit of tliese objects, in 
public life or in a private station, I am 
willing to perform the part assigned to 
me. and to give them, with hearty good- 
will and zealous effort, all that may re- 
main to me of strength and life. 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED ON THE 22d OF DECEMBER, 1843, AT THE PUBLIC 
DINNER OF THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, IN COMMEMO- 
RATION OF THE LANDING OF THE PILGRIMS. 



[The great Pilgrim festival was cele- 
brated on the 22d of December, 1843, by the 
New England Society of New York, with 
imcommon spirit and success. A commem- 
orative oration was delivered in the morn- 
ing by Hon. Rufus Choate, in a style of 
eloquence rarely equalled. The public 
dinner of the Society, at the Astor House, 
at which M. H. Grinnell, Esq. presided, 
was attended by a very large company, 
composed of the members of the Society 
and their invited guests. Several appro- 
priate toasts having been given and re- 
sponded to by the distinguished individuals 
present, George Griswold, Esq. rose to 
offer one in honor of Mr. Webster. After 
a few remarks complimentary to that gen- 
tleman, in reference to his services in refut- 
ing the doctrine of nullification and in 
averting the danger of war by the treaty 
of Washington, Mr. Griswold gave the 
following toast : — 

"Daniel Webster, — the gift of New 
England to his country, his whole country, 
and nothing but his country." 

This was received with great applause, 
and on rising to respond to it Mr. Webster 
was greeted with nine enthusiastic cheers, 
and the most hearty and prolonged appro- 
bation. When silence was restored, he 
spoke as follows.] 

Mr. President : — I have a grate- 
ful duty to perform in acknowledging 
the kindness of the sentiment thus ex- 
pressed towards me. And yet I must 
say, Gentlemen, that I rise upon this 
occasion under a consciousness that I 
may pi'obably disappoint highly raised, 
too highly raised expectations. In the 
scenes of this evening, and in the scene of 
this day, my part is an humble one. I can 



enter into no competition with the fresher 
geniuses of those more eloquent gentle- 
men, learned and reverend, who have 
addressed this Society. I may perform, 
however, the humbler, but sometimes 
useful, duty of contrast, by adding the 
dark ground of the picture, which shall 
serve to bring out the more brilliant 
colors. 

I must receive, Gentlemen, the senti- 
ment proposed by the worthy and dis- 
tinguished citizen of New York before 
me, as intended to convey the idea that, 
as a citizen of New England, as a son, 
a child, a creation of New England, I 
may be yet supposed to entertain, in 
some degree, that enlarged view of my 
duty as a citizen of the United States 
and as a public man, which may, in 
some small measure, commend me to the 
regard of the whole country. While I 
am free to confess. Gentlemen, that 
there is no compliment of which I am 
more desirous to be thought worthy, I 
will add, that a compliment of that kind 
could have proceeded fiom no source 
more agreeable to my own feelings than 
from the gentleman who has proposed 
it, — an eminent merchant, the member 
of a body of eminent merchants, known 
throughout the world for their intelli- 
gence and enterprise. I the more espe- 
cially feel this. Gentlemen, because, 
whether I view the present state of 
things or recur to the history of the past, 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



497 



T can in neither case be ignorant how 
much that profession, and its distin- 
guished members, from an early day 
of our history, have contributed to make 
the country what it is, and the govern- 
ment what it is. 

Gentlemen, the free nature of our 
institutions, and the popular form of 
tliose governments which have come 
down to us from the Rock of Plymouth, 
give scope to intelligence, to talent, en- 
terprise, and public spirit, from all 
classes making up the great body of the 
community. And the counti-y has re- 
ceived heuefit in all its historv and in all 
its exigencies, of the most..e*itinent and 
striking character, from persons of the 
class to which my friend before me be- 
longs. ^^'ho will ever forget that the 
first name signed to our ever-memorable 
and ever-glorious Declaration of Inde- 
pendence is the name of John Hancock, 
a merchant of Boston? Who will ever 
forget that, in the moat disastrous days 
of the Revolution, when the treasury of 
the country was bankrupt, with unpaid 
navies and starving armies, it was a mer- 
chant, — Robert Morris of Philadelphia, 
— who, by a noble sacrifice of his own 
fortune, as well as by the exercise of his 
great financial abilities, sustained and 
supported the wise men of the country in 
council, and the brave men of the coun- 
try in the field of battle? Nor are there 
wanting more recent instances. T have 
the pleasure to see near me, and near 
my friend who proposed this sentiment, 
the son of an eminent merchant of New 
England (Mr. Goodhue), an early mem- 
ber of the Senate of the United States, 
always consulted, always respected, in 
whatever belonged to the duty and the 
means of putting in operation the finan- 
cial and commercial system of the coun- 
try; and this mention of the father of 
my friend brings to my mind the mem- 
ory of his great colleague, the early 
associate of Hamilton and of Ames, 
trusted and beloved by Washington, 
consulted on all occasions connected with 
the administration of the finances, the 
establishment of the treasury depart- 
ment, the imposition of the first rates 
vi duty, and with every thing that 



belonged to the commercial sy.stem of 
the United States, — George Cabot, of 
Massachusetts. 

I will take this occasion to say, Gen- 
tlemen, that there is no truth better 
developed and established in the history 
of the United States, from the forma- 
tion of the Constitution to the present 
time, than this, — that the mercantile 
classes, the great commercial masses of 
the country, whose affairs connect them 
strongly with every State in the Union 
and with all the nations of the earth, 
whose business and profession give a 
sort of nationality to their character, — 
that no class of men among us, from the 
beginning, have shown a stronger and 
firmer devotion to whatsoever has been 
designed, or to whatever has tended, to 
preserve the union of these States and 
the stability of the free government un- 
der which we live. The Constitution of 
the United States, in regard to the vari- 
ous municipal regulations and local in- 
terests, has left the States in<livi(hKil, 
disconnected, isolated. It has left them 
their own codes of criminal law ; it has 
left them their own sj'stem of municipal 
regulations. But there was one great 
interest, one great concern, which, from 
the verj^ nature of the case, was no 
longer to be left under the regulations 
of the then thirteen, afterwards twenty, 
and now twenty-six States, but was com- 
mitted, necessarily committed, to the 
care, the protection, and the regulation 
of one government; and this was that 
great unit, as it has been called, the 
commerce of the United States. There 
is no commerce of New York, no com- 
merce of Massachusetts, none of Georgia, 
none of Alabama or Louisiana. All and 
singular, in the aggregate an<l in all its 
parts, is the commerce of the United 
States, regulated at home by a uniform 
.system of laws under the authority of 
the general government, and j)rotected 
abroad under the flag of our govern- 
ment, the glorious JC PlurUms Unum, 
and guarded, if need be, by the power 
of the general government all over tlie 
world. There is, therefore, Gentlemen, 
nothing more cementing, notliing that 
makes us more cohesive, nothing that 



32 



498 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



more repels all tendencies to separation 
and dismemberment, than this great, 
this common, I may say this overwhelm- 
ing interest of one commerce, one gen- 
eral system of trade and navigation, one 
everywhere and with every nation of the 
globe. There is no flag of any partic- 
ular American State seen in the Pacific 
seas, or in the Baltic, or in the Indian 
Ocean. Who knows, or who hears, 
there of your proud State, or of my 
proud State? Who knows, or who hears, 
of any thing, at the extremest north or 
south, or at the antipodes, — in the re- 
motest regions of the Eastern or West- 
ern Sea, — who ever hears, or knows, of 
any thing but an American ship, or of 
any American enterprise of a commercial 
character that does not bear the impres- 
sion of the American Union with it? 

It would be a presumption of which 
I cannot be guilty. Gentlemen, for me 
to imagine for a moment, that, among 
the gifts which New England has made 
to our common country, I am any thing 
more than one of the most inconsidera- 
ble. I readily bring to mind the great 
men, not only with whom I have met, 
but those of the generation before me, 
who now sleep with their fathers, distin- 
guished in the Revolution, distinguished 
in the formation of the Constitution and 
in the early administration of the gov- 
ernment, always and everywhere dis- 
tinguished ; and I shrink in just and 
conscious humiliation before their es- 
tablished character and established re- 
nown; and all that I venture to say, 
and all that I venture to hope may 
be thought true, in the sentiment pro- 
posed, is, that, so far as mind and 
purpose, so far as intention and will, 
are concerned, I may be found among 
those who are capable of embracing the 
whole country of which they are mem- 
bers in a proper, comprehensive, and 
patriotic regard. We all know that the 
objects which are nearest are the objects 
which are dearest ; family affections, 
neighborhood affections, social rela- 
tions, these in truth are nearest and 
dearest to us all ; but whosoever shall 
be able rightly to adjust the gradu- 
ation of his affections, and to love his 



friends and his neighbors, and his coun- 
try, as he ought to love them, merits the 
commendation pronounced by the philo- 
sophic poet upon him 

" Qui didicit patriae quid debeat, et quid 
amicis." 

Gentlemen, it has been my fortune, 
in the little part which I have acted in 
public life, for good or for evil to the 
community, to be connected entirely 
with that government which, within the 
limits of constitutional power, exercises 
jurisdiction over all the States and all 
the people. My friend at the end of the 
table on my left has spoken pleasantly 
to us to-night of the reputed miracles 
of tutelar saints. In a sober sense, in a 
sense of deep conviction, I say that the 
emergence of this country from British 
domination, and its union under its 
present form of government beneath 
the general Constitution of the coun- 
try, if not a miracle, is, 1 do not say 
the most, but one of the most fortu- 
nate, the most admirable, the most aus- 
picious occurrences, which have ever 
fallen to the lot of man. Circumstances 
have wrought out for us a state of things 
which, in other times and other regions, 
philosophy has dreamed of, aiid theory 
has proposed, and speculation has sug- 
gested, but which man has never been 
able to accomplish. I mean the govern- 
ment of a great nation over a vastly 
extended portion of the surface of the 
earth, by means of local institutions for 
local purposes, and general institutions for 
general purposes. I know of nothing in 
the history of the world, notwithstand- 
ing the great league of Grecian states, 
notwithstanding the success of the Ro- 
man sj'stem, (and certainly there is no 
exception to the remark in modern his- 
tory,) — I know of nothing so suitable 
on the whole for the great interests of a 
great people spread over a large portion 
of the globe, as the provision of local 
legislation for local and municipal pur- 
poses, with, not a confederacy, nor a loose 
binding together of separate parts, but 
a limited, positive general government 
for positive general purposes, over the 
whole. We may derive eminent proofs 
of this truth from the past and the pres- 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



499 



ent. What see we to-day in the agita- 
tions on the other side of tlie Atliintic? 
J speak of them, of course, without ex- 
pressing any opinion on questions of 
politics in a foreign country ; but I 
speak of them as an occurrence which 
shows the great expediency, the utility, 
I may say the necessity, of local legis- 
latiim. If, in a country on the other 
side of the water (Ireland), there be 
some who desire a severance of one part 
of the empire from another, under a 
proposition of repeal, there are others 
who propose a continuance of the ex- 
isting relation under a federative sys- 
tem: and what is this? No more, and 
no less, than an approximation to that 
system under wliich we live, which for 
local, municipal purposes shall have a 
local legislature, and for general pur- 
poses a general legislature. 

This becomes the more important 
when we consider that the United States 
stretch over so many degrees of latitude, 
— that they embrace such a variety of 
climate, — that various conditions and 
relations of society naturally call for dif- 
ferent laws and regulations. Let me ask 
whether the legislature of New York 
could wisely pass laws for the govern- 
ment of Louisiana, or whether the legis- 
lature of Louisiana could wisely pass 
laws for Pennsylvania or New York? 
Everybody will say, "No." And yet 
the interests of New Y'ork and Pennsyl- 
vania and Louisiana, in whatever con- 
cerns their relations between themselves 
and their general relations with all the 
states of the world, are found to be per- 
fectly well provided for, and adjusted 
with perfect congruity, by committing 
lliese general interests to one common 
government, the result of popular gen- 
eral elections among them all. 

I confess. Gentlemen, that having 
been, as I have said, in my liumble 
career in jmblic life, employed in that 
jiortion of the public service which is 
connected with the general government, 
I have contemplated, as the great ob- 
ject of every proceeding, not only the 
particular benefit of the moment, or the 
exigency of the occasion, but the preser- 
vation of this system ; for 1 do consider 



it so much the result of circumstances, 
and that so much of it is due to for- 
tunate concurrence, as well as to the 
sagacity of the great men acting upon 
those occasions, — that it is an experi- 
ment of such remarkable and renowned 
success, — that he is a fool or a'mad- 
man who would wish to try that experi- 
ment a second time. I .see to-day, and we 
all see, that the descendants of the Puri- 
tans who landed upon the Rock of Ply- 
nioutli; the followers of Raleigh, who 
settled Virginia and North Carolina; he 
who lives where the truncheon of em- 
pire, so to sjieak, was borne by Smith ; 
the inhabitants of Georgia; he who set- 
tled under the auspices of France at the 
mouth of the ^lississippi ; the Swede on 
the Delaware, the Quaker of Pennsyl- 
vania, — all find, at this day, their com- 
mon interest, their common protection, 
their common glory, under the united 
government, which leaves them all, 
nevertheless, in the administration of 
their own municipal and local affairs, 
to be Frenchmen, or Swedes, or Quak- 
ers, or whatever they choose. And when 
one considers that this system of gov- 
ernment, I will not say has produced, 
becaxise God and natuve and circum- 
stances have had an agency in it, — but 
when it is considered that this system 
has not prevented, but has rather en- 
couraged, the growth of the people of 
this country from three millions, on the 
glorious ith of July, 1776, to seventeen 
millions now, who is there that will say, 
upon this hemisphei-e, — nay, who is 
there that will stand up in any hemi- 
sphere, who is there in any part of the 
world, that will say that the great ex- 
periment of a united republic haa failed 
in America? And yet I know. Gentle- 
men, I feel, that this united system is 
held together by strong tendencies to 
union, at the same time tluvt it is kept 
from too much leaning toward consoli- 
dation by a strong tendency in the sev- 
eral States to sujtport each its own 
power and consideration. Li the physi- 
cal world it is said, that 

"All n.iture's difftTcnce keeps all nature's 
peace," 
and there is in the political world this 



500 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



same harmonious difference, this regu- 
lar play of the positive and negative 
powers, (if I may so say,) which, at 
least for one glorious half-century, has 
kept us as we have been kept, and made 
us what we are. 

But, Gentlemen, I must not allow my- 
self to pursue this topic. It is a senti- 
ment so commonly repeated by me upon 
all public occasions, and upon all pri- 
vate occasions, and everywhere, that I 
forbear to dwell upon it now. It is the 
union of these States, it is the system 
of government under which we live, be- 
neath the Constitution of the United 
States, happily framed, wisely adopted, 
successfully administered for fifty years, 
— it is mainly this, I say, that gives us 
power at home and credit abroad. And, 
for one, I never stop to consider the 
power or wealth or greatness of a State. 
I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I care nothing 
for your Empire State as such. Dela- 
ware and Rhode Island are as high in 
my regard as New York. In popula- 
tion, in power, in the government over 
"US, you have a greater share. You 
would have the same share if you were 
divided into forty States. It is not, 
therefore, as a "State sovereignty, it is 
only because New Y'^ork is a vast por- 
tion of the whole American people, that 
I regard this State, as I always shall 
regard her, as respectable and honora- 
ble. But among State sovereignties 
there is no preference; there is nothing 
high and nothing low; every State is 
independent and every State is equal. 
If we depart from this great principle, 
then are we no longer one people ; but 
we are thrown back again upon the Con- 
federation, and upon that state of things 
in which the inequality of the States 
produced all the evils which befell us in 
times past, and a thousand ill-adjusted 
and jarring interests. 

Mr. President, I wish, then, without 
pursuing these thoughts, without espe- 
cially attempting to produce any fervid 
impression by dwelling upon them, to 
take this occasion to answer my friend 
who has pi'oposed the sentiment, and to 
respond to it by saying, that whoever 
■would serve his country in this our day. 



with whatever degree of talent, great or 
small, it may have pleased the Almighty 
Power to give him, he cannot serve it, 
he will not serve it, unless he be able, 
at least, to extend his political designs, 
purposes, and objects, till they shall 
comprehend the whole country of which 
he is a servant. 

Sir, I must say a word in connection 
with that event which we have assem- 
bled to commemorate. It has seemed 
fit to the dwellers in New York, New- 
Englanders by birth or descent, to form 
this society. They have formed it for 
the relief of the poor and distressed, 
and for the purpose of commemorating 
annually the great event of the settle- 
ment of the country from which they 
spring. It would be great presumption 
in me to go back to the scene of that 
settlement, or to attempt to exhibit it 
in any colors, after the exhibition made 
to-day; yet it is an event that in all 
time since, and in all time to come, 
and more in times to come than in 
times past, must stand out in great 
and striking characteristics to the ad- 
miration of the world. The sun's I'e- 
turn to his winter solstice, in 1620, is 
the epoch from which he dates his first 
acquaintance with the small people, now 
one of the happiest, and destined to be 
one of the greatest, that his rays fall 
upon; and his annual visitation, from 
that day to this, to our frozen region, 
has enabled him to see that progress, 
prorp-ess, was the characteristic of that 
small people. He has seen them from a 
handful, that one of his beams coming 
through a key-hole might illuminate, 
spread over a hemisphere which he can- 
not enlighten under the slightest eclipse. 
Nor, though this globe should revolve 
round him for tens of hundreds of thou- 
sands of yeai's, will he see such another 
incipient colonization upon any part of 
this attendant upon his mighty orb. 
What else he may see in those other 
planets which revolve around him we 
cannot tell, at least until we have tried 
the fifty-foot telescope which Lord Rosse 
is preparing for that purpose. 

There is not. Gentlemen, and we may 
as well admit it, in any history of the 



THE LANDING AT rLYMOUTII. 



501 



past, another epoch from which so many 
great events have taken a turn ; events 
which, while important to us, are equally 
important to the country from whence 
we came. The settlement of Plymouth 
— concurring, I always wish to be un- 
derstood, w ith that of V'irginia — was the 
settlement of New England by colonies 
of Old England. Now, Gentlemen, take 
these two ideas and run out the thousrhts 
suggested by both. What has been, aiid 
what is to be. Old England ? What has 
been, what is, and what may be, in the 
providence of God, New England, with 
lier neighbors and associates ? I would 
not dw^ell, Gentlemen, with any particu- 
lar emphasis upon the sentiment, which 
I nevertheless entertain, with respect to 
the great diversity in the races of men. 
I do not know how far in that respect I 
might not encroach on those mysteries 
of Providence which, while I adore, I 
may not comprehend; but it does seem 
to me to be very remarkable, that we 
may go back to the time when New 
England, or those who founded it, were 
subtracted from Old England ; and both 
Old England and New England went 
on, nevertheless, in their mighty career 
of progress and power. 

Let me begin with New England for a 
moment. What has resulted, embrac- 
ing, as I say, the nearly contempora- 
neous settlement of Virginia, — what 
lias resulted from the planting upon this 
continent of two or three slender colo- 
nies from the mother country ? Gentle- 
men, the great epitaph commemorative 
of the character and the worth, the 
discoveries and glory, of Columbus, was, 
that he had given a new world to the crowns 
of Castile and Aragon. Gentlemen, this 
is a great mistake. It does not come up 
at all to the great merits of Columbus. 
He gave the territory of the southern 
hemisphere to the crowns of Castile and 
Aragon ; but as a place for the plantation 
of colonies, as a place for the habitation 
of men, as a place to which laws and relig- 
ion, and manners and science, were to be 
transferred, as a place in which the crea- 
tures of God should multiply and fill the 
earth, under friendlv skies and with reli<r- 
ious hearts, he gave it to the whole world, 



he gave it to universal man ! From this 

seminal principle, and from a handful, a 
hundred saints, blessed of God and ever 
honored of men, landed on the sljores of 
Plymouth and elsewhere along the coast, 
united, as 1 have said already more than 
once, in the process of time, with the set- 
tlement at Jamestown, has sprung this 
great people of which we are a portion. 
I do not reckon myself among quite 
the oldest of the land, and yet it so 
happens that very recently I recurred to 
an exulting speech or oration of my own, 
in which I spoke of my country as con- 
sisting of nine millions of people. I 
could hardly persuade myself that within 
the short time which had elapsed since 
that epoch our population had doubled; 
and that at the present moment there 
does exist most unquestionably as great 
a probability of its continued progress, 
in the same ratio, as has ever existed 
in any previous time. I do not know 
whose imagination is fertile enough, I 
do not know whose conjectures, I may 
almost say, are wild enough to tell what 
may be the progress of wealth and popu- 
lation in the United States in half a 
century to come. All we know is, here 
is a people of from seventeen to twenty 
millions, intelligent, educated, freehold- 
ers, freemen, republicans, possessed of 
all the means of modern improvement, 
modern science, arts, literature, with the 
world befoie them ! There is nothinsr to 
check them till they touch the shores of 
the Pacific, and then, they are so much 
accustomed to water, that that 's a facil- 
ity, and no obstruction ! 

So mucli. Gentlemen, for this branch 
of the English race ; but what has hap- 
pened, meanwhile, to England herself 
since the period of the departure of the 
Puritans from the coast of Lincolnshire, 
from the English Boston ? Gentlemen, 
in speaking of the progress of English 
power, of English dominion and author- 
ity, from that period to the present, I 
shall be understood, of course, as neither 
entering into any defence or an} accusa- 
tion of the policy which has conducted 
her to her present state. As to the jus- 
tice of lier wars, the necessity of her 
conquests, the propriety of those acts by 



502 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



■which she has taken possession of so 
great a portion of the globe, it is not the 
business of the present occasion to in- 
quire. Neque teneo, neque refello. But 
I speak of them, or intend to speak of 
them, as facts of the most extraordinary 
character, unequalled in the history of 
any nation on the globe, and the conse- 
quences of which nuiy and must reach 
through a thousand generations. The 
Puritans left England in the reign Jpf 
James the First. England herself had 
then become somewhat settled and es- 
tablished in the Protestant faith, and in 
the quiet enjoyment of property, by the 
previous energetic, long, and prosperous 
reiffn of Elizabeth. Her successor was 
James the Sixth of Scotland, now 
become James the First of England; 
and here was a union of the crowns, but 
not of the kingdoms, — a very important 
distinction. Ireland was held by a 
military power, and one cannot but see 
that at that day, whatever may be true 
or untrue in more recent periods of her 
history, Ireland was held by England by 
the two great potencies, the power of the 
sword and the power of confiscation. In 
other respects, England was nothing like 
the England which we now behold. Her 
foreign possessions were quite inconsid- 
erable. She had some hold on the West 
India Islands ; she had Acadia, or Nova 
Scotia, which King James granted, by 
wholesale, for the endowment of the 
knights whom he created by hundreds. 
And what has been her progress ? Did 
she then possess Gibi-altar, the key to the 
Mediterranean ? Did she possess a port 
in the Mediterranean? Was Malta hers ? 
Were the Ionian Islands hers? Was 
the southern extremity of Africa, was 
the Cape of Good Hope, hers? Were 
the whole of her vast possessions in 
India hers ? Was her great Australian 
empire hers ? While that branch of her 
population which followed the western 
star, and under its guidance committed 
itself to the duty of settling, fertilizing, 
and peopling an unknown wilderness in 
the West, were pursuing their destinies, 
other causes, providential doubtless, 
were leading English power eastward 
and southward, in consequence and by 



means of her naval prowess, and the 
extent of her commerce, until in our day 
we have seen that within the Mediterra- 
nean, on" the western coast and at the 
southern extremity of Africa, in Arabia, 
in hither India and farther India, she 
has a population ten times as great as 
that of the Briti.sh Isles two centuries 
ago. And recently, as we have wit- 
nessed, — I will not say with how much 
truth and justice, policy or impolicy, I 
do not speak at all to the morality of 
the action, I only speak to the fact, — 
she has found admission into China, and 
has carried the Christian religion and 
the Protestant faith to the doors of three 
hundred millions of people. 

It has been said that whosoever would 
see the Eastern world before it turns 
into a Western world must make his 
visit soon, because steamboats and om- 
nibuses, commerce, and all the arts of 
Europe, are extending themselves from 
Egypt to Suez, from Suez to the Indian 
seas, and from the Indian seas all over the 
explored regions of the still farther East. 
Now, Gentlemen, I do not know what 
practical views or what practical results 
may take place from this great expan- 
sion of the power of the two branches of 
Old England. It is not for me to say. 
I only can see, that on this continent all 
is to be Anglo-American from Plymouth 
Rock to the Pacific seas, from the north 
pole to California. That is certain ; and 
in the Eastern world, I only see that yon 
can hardly place a finger on a map of 
the world and be an inch from an Eng- 
lish settlement. 

Gentlemen, if there be any thing in 
the supremacy of races, the experiment 
now in progress will develop it. If 
there be any truth in the idea, that those 
who issued from the great Caucasian 
fountain, and spread over Europe, are 
to react on India and on Asia, and to 
act on the whole Western world, it may 
not be for us, nor our children, nor our 
grandchildren, to see it, but it will be 
for our descendants of some generation 
to see the extent of that progress and 
dominion of the favored races. 

For myself, I believe there is no limit 
fit to be assigned to it by the human 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



503 



mind, because I find at work everywhere, 
on both sides of the Atlantic, under 
various forms and degrees of restriction 
on the one hand, and under various 
degrees of motive and stimuhis on the 
other hand, in these branches of a com- 
mon race, the great principle of the free- 
dom of human thought, and the respecta- 
bUity of individual character. I find 
everywhere an elevation of the character 
of man as man, an elevation of the in- 
dividual as a component pait of society. 
I find everywhere a rebuke of the idea, 
that the many are made for the few, or 
that government is any thing but an 
agency for mankind. And I care not 
beneath what zone, frozen, temperate, 
or torrid ; I care not of what complexion, 
white or brown; I care not under what 
circumstances of climate or cultivation, — 
if I can find a race of men on an inhabi- 
table spot of earth whose general senti- 
ment it is, and wliose general feeling it 
is, that government is made for man, — 
man, as a religious, moral, and social 
being, — and not man for government, 
there I know that I shall find prosperity 
and happiness. 

Gentlemen, I forbear from these re- 
marks. I recur with pleasure to the 
sentiment which I expressed at the com- 
mencement of my observations. I re- 
peat the gratification which I feel at 
having been referred to on this occasion 
by a distinguished member of the mer- 
cantile profession; and without detain- 
ing you farther, I beg to offer as a senti- 
ment, — 

" The mercantile interest of the United 
States, always and everywhere friendly 
to a united and free government." 

Mr. Webster sat down amid loud and re- 
peated applause ; and inimediatcly after, at 
the request of the President, rose and said : — 

Gentlemen, I have the permission of 
the President to call your attention to 
the circumstance that a distinguished 
foreigner is at the table to-night, Mr. 
Aldham; a gentleman, I am happy to 
say, of my own hard-working profes- 
sion, and a member of the English Par- 
liament from the great city of Leeds. 
A traveller in the United States, in the 



most^HJUiostentatious manner, he has 
done nJthe honor, at the request of the 
Socict^Bto be present to-night. I rise, 
Gentlein», to proixise his health. He 
is of that^ld England of which I have 
been speaking; of that Old England 
with whom we had some fifty years ago 
rather a serious family quarrel, — ter- 

Sted in a manner, I believe, not 
cularly disadvantageous to either 
s. He will find in this, his first 
to our country, many things to 
remind him of his own home, and the 
pursuits in which he is engaged in that 
home. If he will go into our courts of 
law, he will find tliose who practise 
there referring to the same books of 
authority, acknowledging the same 
principles, discussing the same sulijects 
which he left under discussion in West- 
minster Hall. If he go into our public 
as.semblies, he will find the same rides 
of procedure — possibly not always quite 
as regularly observed — as he left be- 
hind him in that house of Parliament 
of which he is a member. At any rate, 
he will find us a branch of that great 
family to which he himself belongs, and 
I doubt not that, in his sojourn among 
us, in the acquaintances he may form, 
the notions he may naturally imbibe, he 
will go home to his own country some- 
what better satisfied with what he has 
seen and learned on this side of the 
Atlantic, and somewhat more convinced 
of the great importance to both coun- 
tries of preserving the peace that at 
present subsists between them. I pro- 
pose to you. Gentlemen, the health of 
Mr. Aldham. 

Mr. Aldliam rose and said : — " Mr. Presi- 
dent and Gentlemen of the New England 
Society, I little expected to be calkd on to 
take a part in the proceedings of this i-von- 
ing ; but I am very liappy in being afforded 
an ()p])ortiniity of expressing my grateful 
acknowk'dgiiR'Uts for the vory cordial liuspi- 
tality which you have extcmled to nic, and 
the very agreeable intellectual treat with 
which I have been favored this evening. 
It was with no little astoiiisliiuent tliat I 
listened to the terms in wliicli I was intro- 
duced to you by a gentleman whom I so 
mucli honor (Mr. Wi'hster). The kind and 
friendly terms in which he referred to lue 



504 



THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 



were, indeed, quite unmerited by their hum- 
ble object, and notliing, indeed, could have 
been more inappropriate. It is impossible 
for any stranger to witness such a scene as 
this without the greatest interest. It is the 
celebration of an event which already 
stands recorded as one of tiie most inter- 
esting and momentous occurrences which 
ever took place in the annals of our race. 
And an Englishman especially cannot but 
experience the deepest emotion as he re- 
gards such a scene. Every thing which he 
sees, every emblem employed in this cele- 
bration, many of the topics introduced, re- 
mind him most impressively of that com- 



munity of ancestry which exists between 
his own countrymen and that great race 
which peoples this continent, and which, in 
enterprise, ingenuity, and commercial ac- 
tivity, — in all the elements indeed of a 
great and prosperous nation, — is certainly 
not exceeded, perhaps not equalled, by any 
other nation on the face of the globe. Gen- 
tlemen, I again thank you for the honor 
you have done me, and conclude by ex- 
pressing the hope that the event may con- 
tinue to be celebrated in the manner which 
its importance and interest merit." 

Mr. Aldham sat down amid great ap- 
plause. 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY AND THE RELIGIOUS 
INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED IN" THE SUPREME COURT AT WASHINGTON, ON THE 
20th of FEBRUARY, 1844, IN THE GIRARD WILL CASE. 



[The heirs at law of the late Stephen 
Girard, of Philadelphia, instituted a suit in 
October, 1836, in the Circuit Court of the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting 
as a court of equity, to try the question of 
tlie validity of his will. In April, 1841, the 
cause came on for hearing in the Circuit 
Court, and was decided in favor of the 
will. The case was carried by apjieal to 
the Supreme Court of the United States, 
at Washington, where it was argued by 
General Jones and Mr. Webster for the com- 
plainants and appellants, and by Messrs. 
Binney and Sergeant for tiie validity of 
the wHI. 

The following speech was made by Mr. 
Webster in the course of the trial at Wash- 
ington. A deep impression was produced 
upon the public mind by those portions of 
it which enforced the intimate connection 
of the Christian ministry with the business 
of instruction, and the necessity of found- 
ing education on a religious basis. 

This impression resulted in the follow- 
ing correspondence : — 

" Washin(/ton, February 1.3, 1844. 

"Sir, — Enclosed is a copy of certain pro- 
ceedings of a meeting held in reference to yonr 
argument in the Supreme Court of tlie case 
arising out of tlie late Mr. Girard's will. In 
communicating to you the request contained in 
tlie second resolution, we take leave to express 
our earnest iiope that you may tind it conven- 
ient to comply with that re(iuest. 

" We are, Sir, with high consideration, 
yours, verv respectfully, 
P.R. Fk.ndai.l, 

HoHACli STHI.NC;FELLnw, 
J<)SI!U.\ N D.^NFUHTII, 

R. R. Gum Kv, 

WiLLIA.M Ru(;(JLE8, 
JoKL S. 15.\Ci)N, 

Thomas Skwam-, 
Wii-MASi M. Kdwauds, 
"Hon. Danill, Weusteu." 



Committee. 



"At a meeting of a number of citizens, be- 
longing to different religious denominations, of 
Washington and its vicinity, convened to con- 
sider the expediencv of procuring the publica- 
tion of so much of ]\Ir. Webster's argument 
before the Supreme Court of the United States, 
in the case of Francois F. Vidal et al.. Appel- 
lants, V. The Mayor, .\Mermen, and Citizens 
of Philadelphia, and Stejilien Girard's Execu- 
tors, as relates to that part of Mr. (Jirard's will 
which excludes ministers of religion from any 
station or duty in the college directed by the 
testator to he founded, and denies to theni the 
right of visiting said college; the object of the 
meeting having been stated by Professor Scwall 
in a few appropriate remarks, the Hon. Henry 
L. Ellsworth was elected chairman, and the 
Rev. Isaac S. Tinsley secretary. 

" Whereupon it was, on motion, unanimously 
resolved, 

"1st. That, in the opinion of this meeting, 
the powerful and elo(]uent argument of Mr. 
Webster, on the before-mentioned clause of Mr. 
Girard's will, demonstrates the vital importance 
of Christianity to the success of our free institu- 
tions, and its necessity as the basis of all useful 
moral education; and that the general diffusion 
of that argument among the people of the United 
States is a matter of deep public interest. 

'■2d. That a committee of eight persons, of 
the several (,'hiistian denominations represented 
in this meeting, be appointed to wait on Mr. 
Webster, and, in the name and on behalf of 
this meeting, to request him to prepare for the 
press the portion refeired to of his arginnent in 
the Girard case; and, should he ciin>cnt to do 
so, to cause it to be speedily' published and ex- 
tensively disseminated. 

"The following gentlemen were appointed 
the committee under the second resolution: 
Philip R Fendall, I'"sf|., Rev. Horace String- 
fellow, Rev. .loshua \. D.nifurth, Itev. R. Ran- 
dolph (iurley, Professor William Ruggles, Rer. 
President .1. S. Paeon, Doctor Thomas Scwall, 
Rev. \\'illiam H. Edwards. 

"The meeting then adjourned. 

" H. L. Ki.i.swoKTH, Chaii-man. 

"Isaac S. Tinsley, Secretary." 



506 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



" Wasliingtun, February 13, 1844. 

" Gfntlemen, — I have the honor to ac- 
knowledge ihe receipt of your comnuinication. 
Gentlemen connected with the public press 
have, I believe, reported my speech in the case 
arisinif under Mr. Girard's will. I will look 
over the report of that part of it to which you 
refer, so far as to see that it is free from mate- 
rial errors, but I have not leisure so to revise it 
as to give it the form of a careful or regular 
composition. 

" I am. Gentlemen, with A-ery true regard, 
vour obedient servant, 

"Daniel Webster. 

"To Messrs. P. R. Fendaix, 

Horace Stringfellow, 
Joshua N. Danforth, 
R. R. Gurley, 
William Ruggles, 
Joel S. Bacon, 
Thomas Sewall, 
VViLLiAM B. Edwards." 

The following mottoes were prefixed to 
this speech, in the original pamphlet edi- 
tion. 

" Socrates. If, then, you wish public meas- 
ures to be right and noble, virtue must be given 
by you to the citizens. 

" Alcibiades. How could any one deny that ? 

" Socrates. Virtue, therefore, is that which 
is to be first possessed, both by you and by 
every other person who would have direction 
and care, not only for himself and things dear 
to himself, but for the state and things dear to 
the state. 

'■ Akibindes. You speak truly. 

'■'■Socrates. To act justly and wisely (both 
you and the state), you must act according 
i'o THE WILL OF God. 

" Alcibiades. It is so." — Plato. 

" Sic isitur hoc a principio persuasum civibus, 
dominos esse omnium rerum ac moderatores, 
decs." — Cicero de Lei/ibus. 

" We shall never be such fools as to call in 
an enemy to the substance of any system, to 
supply its detects, or to perfect its construction " 

" if our religious tenets should ever want a 
further elucidation, we shall not call on atheism 
to explain them. We shall not light up our 
temple from that unhallowed fire." 

" We know, and it is our pride to know, that 
man is, by his constitution, a religious animal." 
— Burke. 

May it please your Honors: — 

It is not necessary for nie to narrate, 
in detail, the numerous provisions of 
Mr. Girard's will. This has already 
been repeatedly done by other counsel, 
and I shall content myself with stating 
and considering those parts only which 
are immediately involved in the decision 
of this cause. 

The will is drawn with apparent care 
and method, and is regularly divided 
into clauses. The first nineteen clauses 
contain various devises and legacies to 



relatives, to other private individuals, 
and to public bodies. By the twentieth 
clause the whole residue of his estate, 
real and personal, is devised and be- 
queathed to the "mayor, aldermen, 
and citizens of Philadelphia," in trust 
for the several uses to be after men- 
tioned and declared. 

The twenty-first clause contains the 
devise or bequest to the college, in these 
words : — 

"And so far as regards the residue of 
my personal estate in trust, as to two mil- 
lions of dollars, part thereof, to apply and 
expend so much of that sum as may be 
necessary in erecting, as soon as practica- 
bly may be, in the centre of my square of 
ground, between High and Chestnut Streets, 
and Eleventh and Twelfth Streets, in the 
city of Philadelphia, (which square of 
ground I hereby devote for the purpose 
hereinafter stated, and for no other, for 
ever,) a permanent college, with suitable 
out-buildings sufficiently spacious for the 
residence and accommodation of at least 
three hundred scholars, and the requisite 
teachers and other persons necessary in 
such an institution as I direct to be estab- 
lished, and in supplying the said college and 
out-buiidings with decent and suitable fur- 
niture, as well as books, and all things 
needful to carry into effect my general 
design." 

The testator then proceeds to direct 
that the college shall be constructed of 
the most durable materials, avoiding 
needless ornament, and attending chiefly 
to the strength, convenience, and neat- 
ness of the whole; and gives directions, 
very much in detail, respecting the form 
of the building, and the size and fashion 
of the rooms. The whole square, he 
directs, shall be enclosed with a solid 
wall, at least fourteen inches thick and 
ten feet high, capped with maj-ble, and 
guarded with irons on the top, so as to 
prevent persons from getting over; and 
there are to be two places of entrance 
into the square, with two gates at each, 
one opening inward and the other out- 
ward, those opening inward to be of 
iron, and those opening outward to be 
of wood-work, lined with sheet-iron. 

The testator then proceeds to give 
his directions respecting the institution, 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



507 



laying down his plan and objects in 
several articles. The third article is in 
these words : — 

"3. As many poor white male orphans, 
between the ages of si.\ and ten years, as 
the said income shall be adequate to main- 
tain, shall be introduced into the college as 
soon as possible ; and from time to time, 
as there may be vacancies, or as increased 
ability from income may warrant, others 
shall be introduced." 

The fifth direction is as follows : — 

"5. No orphan should be admitted until 
the guardians, or directors of the i)oor, or 
a proper guardian or other competent au- 
thority, shall have given, by indenture, re- 
linquishment, or otherwise, adequate power 
to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of 
Philadelphia, or to directors or others by 
them appointed, to enforce, in relation to 
each orphan, every proper restraint, and to 
prevent relations or others from interfer- 
ing wuth or withdrawing such orplian from 
the institution." 

Bj^ the sixth article, or direction, 
preference is to be given, first, to or- 
phans born in Philadelphia; second, to 
those born in other parts of Pennsyl- 
vania; third, to those born in the city 
of New York; and, lastly, to those born 
in the city of New Orleans. 

By the seventh article, it is declared, 
that the orphans shall be lodged, fed, 
and clothed in the college; that they 
shall be instructed in the various branch- 
es of a sound education, comprehend- 
ing reading, writing, grammar, arith- 
metic, geography, navigation, surveying, 
])ractical mathematics, astronomy, nat- 
ural, chemical, and experimental phi- 
losophy, and the French and Spanish 
languages, and such other learning and 
science as the capacities of the scholars 
may merit or want. The Greek and 
Latin languages are not forbidden, but 
are not recommended. 

By the ninth article it is declared, 
that the boys shall remain in the college 
till they arrive at between fourteen and 
eighteen years of age, when they shall 
be bound out by the city government to 
suitable occupations, such as agricul- 
ture, navigation, and the meclianical 
trades. 



The te-stator proceeds to say, that 
he necessarily leaves many details to 
the city government; and then adds, 
" There are, however, some restrictions 
which I consider it my duty to pre- 
scribe, and to be, amongst others, con- 
ditions on which my bequest for said 
college is made, and to be enjoyed." 

The second of these restrictions is in 
the following words : — 

" Secondly. I enjoin and require that ho 
ecclesiastic, missionari/, or minister, of any sect 
whatever, shall ever hold or exercise ani/ station 
or duty whatever in the said colleije ; nor shall 
any such person ever be admitted Jur any pur- 
pose, or as a visitor, ivithin the premises ap- 
propriated to the purposes of the said college. 

" In making this restriction, I do not 
mean to cast any reflection upon any sect 
or person whatsoever; but, as there is such 
a diversity of opinion amongst tlu-m, I de- 
sire to keep the tender minds of tiie or- 
plians wlio are to derive advantage front 
this bequest free from the excitement 
which clashing doctrines and sectarian con- 
troversy are so apt to produce ; my desire 
is, that all the instructors and teachers in 
the college shall take pains to instil into 
the minds of the scholars the purest princi- 
ples of morality, so that on their entrance 
into active life they may, from inclination 
and habit, evince benevolence towards their 
fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, 
and industry, adopting at the same time 
such religiovis tenets as their matured reason 
may enable tliem to prefer." 

The testator having, after the date of 
his will, bought a house in Peuu Town- 
ship, with forty-five acres of land, he 
made a codicil, by which he directed 
the college to be built on this estate, in- 
stead of the square mentioned in the 
will, and the whole establishment to be 
made thereon, just as if he had in his 
will devoted the estate to that purpose. 
The city government has accordingly 
been advised that the whole forty-five 
acres must be enclosed with the same 
high wall as was provided in the will 
for the square in the city. 

I have now stated, I believe, all the 
provisions of the will which are mate- 
rial to the discussion of that part of the 
case which respects the character of 
the iiLstitution. 



508 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



The first question is, whether this de- 
vise can be sustained, otherwise than as 
a charity, and by that special aid and 
assistance by which courts of equity 
support gifts to charitable uses. 

If the devise be a good limitation at 
law, if it require no exercise of the 
favor which is bestowed on privileged 
testaments, then there is already an end 
to the question. But I take it that this 
point is conceded. The devise is void, 
according to the general rules of law, 
on account of the uncertainty in the 
description of those who are intended to 
receive its benefits. 

' ' Poor white male orphan children ' ' 
is so loose a description, that no one can 
bring himself within the terms of the 
bequest, so as to say that it was made 
in his favor. No individual can ac- 
quire any right or interest; nobody, 
therefore, can come forward as a party, 
in a court of law, to claim participation 
in the gift. The bequest must stand, if 
it stand at all, on the peculiar rules 
which equitable jurisprudence applies to 
charities. This is clear. 

I proceed, therefore, to submit, and 
most conscientiously to argue, a ques- 
tion, certainly one of the highest which 
this court has ever been called upon to 
c^'^sider, and one of the highest, and 
L jst important, in my opinion, ever 
likely to come before it. That question 
is, whether, in the eye of equitable juris- 
prudence, this devise be a charity at all. 
I deny that it is so. I maintain, that 
neither by judicial decisions nor by cor- 
rect reasoning on general principles can 
this devise or bequest be regarded as a 
charity. This part of the argument is 
jiot affected by the j^articular judicial 
system of Pennsylvania, or the question 
of the power of her courts to uphold 
and administer charitable gifts. The 
question which I now propose respects 
the inherent, essential, and manifest 
character of the devise itself. In this 
respect, I wish to express myself clearly, 
and to be correctly and distinctly under- 
stood. What I have said I shall stand 
by, and endeavor to maintain ; namely, 
that in the view of a court of equity 
this devise is no charity at all. It is no 



charity, because the plan of education 
proposed by Mr. Girard is derogatory to 
the Christian religion; tends to weaken 
men's reverence for that religion, and 
their conviction of its authority and im- 
portance; and therefore, in its general 
character, tends to mischievous, and not 
to useful ends. 

The proposed school is to be founded 
on plain and clear jirinciples, and for 
plain and clear objects, of infidelity. 
This cannot well be doubted; and a 
gift, or devise, for such objects, is not a 
charity, and as such entitled to the 
well-known favor with which charities 
are received and upheld by the courts of 
Christian countries. 

In the next place, the object of this 
bequest is against the public policy of 
the State of Pennsylvania, in which 
State Christianity is declared to be the 
law of the land. For that reason, 
therefore, as well as the other, the de- 
vise ought not to be allowed to take 
effect. 

These are the two propositions which 
it is my purpose to maintain, on this 
part of the case. 

This scheme of instruction begins 
by attempting to attach reproach and 
odium to the whole clergy of the coun- 
try. It places a brand, a stigma, on 
every individual member of the profes- 
sion, without an exception. No min- 
ister of the Gosjiel, of any denomina- 
tion, is to be allowed to come within 
the grounds belonging to this school, on 
any occasion, or for any purpose what- 
ever. They are all rigorously excluded, 
as if their mere presence might cause 
pestilence. We have heard it said that 
Mr. Girard, by this will, distributed his 
charity without distinction of sect or 
party. However that may be. Sir, he 
certainly has dealt out opprobrium to 
the whole profession of the clergy, with- 
out regard to sect or party. 

By this will, no minister of the Gos- 
pel of any sect or denomination what- 
ever can be authorized or allowed to 
hold any office within the college; and 
not only that, but no minister or clergy- 
man of any sect can, for any purpose 
whatever, enter within the walls that 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



509 



are to surround this college. If a 
clergyman has a sick nephew, or a sick 
grandson, he cannot, upon any pretext, 
be allowed to visit him within the walls 
of the college. The provision of the 
will is express and decisive. Still less 
may a clergyman enter to offer consola- 
tion to the sick, or to unite in prayer 
with the dying. 

Now, I will not arraign Mr. Girard 
or his motives for this. I will not in- 
quire into Mr. Girard's opinions upon 
religion. But I feel bound to say, the 
occasion demands that I should say, that 
this is the most opprobrious, the most 
insulting and unmerited stigma, that 
ever was cast, or attempted to be cast, 
upon the preachers of Christianity, 
from north to south, from east to west, 
through the length and breadth of the 
land, in the history of the country. 
When have they desei-ved it? AVhere 
have they deserved if? How have they 
deserved it? They are not to be allowed 
even the ordinary rights of hospitality; 
not even to be permitted to put their 
foot over the threshold of this college ! 

Sir, I take it upon myself to say, that 
in no country in the world, upon either 
continent, can there be found a body of 
ministers of the Gospel who perform so 
much service to man, in such a fuU 
spirit of self-denial, under so little en- 
couragement from government of any 
kind, and under circumstances almost 
always much straitened and often dis- 
tressed, as the ministers of the Gospel 
in the United States, of all denominar- 
tions. They form no part of any estab- 
lished order of religion ; they constitute 
no hierarchy; they enjoy no peculiar 
privileges. In some of the States they 
are even shut out from all participation 
in the political rights and privileges en- 
joyed by their fellow-citizens. They 
enjoy no tithes, no public provision of 
any kind. ICxcejit here and there, in 
large cities, where a wealthy individual 
occasionally makes a donation for the 
support of public worship, what have 
they to depetid upon? They have to 
depend entirely on the voluntary con- 
tributions of those who hear them. 

And this body of clergymen has 



shown, to the honor of their own coun- 
try and to the astonishment of the hie- 
rarchies of the Old World, that it i.s 
practicable in free governments to raise 
and sustain by voluntary' contribution.s 
alone a body of clergj'mcn, which, for 
devotedness to their sacreil calling, for 
purity of life and character, for learn- 
ing, intelligence, piety, and that wis- 
dom which Cometh from above, is in- 
ferior to none, anil superior to most 
others. 

I hope that our learned men have 
done something for the honor of our lit- 
erature abroad. I hoi>e that the courts 
of justice and members of the bar of 
this country have done something to 
elevate the character of the profession 
of the law. I hope that the discussions 
above (in Congress) have done some- 
thing to meliorate the condition of 
the human race, to secure and extend 
the great charter of human rights, and 
to strengthen and advance the great 
principles of human liberty. But I 
contend that no literarj^ efforts, no ad- 
judications, no constitutional discus- 
sions, nothing that has been done or 
said in favor of the great interests of 
universal man, has done this country 
more credit, at home and abroad, than 
the establishment of our body of clergyn 
men, their support by voluntary contri-" 
butions, and the general excellence of 
their character for piety and learning. 

The great truth has thus been pro- 
claimed and proved, a truth which I be- 
lieve will in time to come shake all the 
hierarchies of Europe, that the volun- 
tary support of such a ministry, under 
fiee institutions, is a practicable idea. 

And j'^t every one of these, the Chris- 
tian ministers of the United States, is 
by this devise denied the privileges 
which are at the same time open to the 
vilest of our race ; every one is shut out 
from this, I had almost said sanctum, 
but I will not profane that word by such 
a use of it. 

Did a man ever live that had a respect 
for the Christian religion, and yet had 
no regard for ant/ one of its ministers? 
Did that system of instruction ever 
exist, which denounced the whole body 



510 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



of Christian teachers, and yet called 
itself a system of Christianity? 

The learned counsel on the other side 
see the weak points of this case. They 
are not blind. They have, with the aid 
of their great learning, industry, and 
research, gone back to the time of Con- 
stantine, they have searched the history 
of the Roman emperors, the Dark Ages, 
and the intervening period, down to the 
settlement of these colonies ; they have 
explored every nook and corner of relig- 
ious and Christian history, to find out 
the various meanings and uses of Chris- 
tian charity ; and yet, with all their 
skill and all their research, they have 
not been able to discover any thing which 
has ever been regarded as a Christian 
charity, that sets such an opprobrium 
upon the forehead of all its ministers. 
If, with all their endeavors, they can 
find any one thing which has been so 
regarded, they may have their college, and 
make the most of it. But the thing 
does not exist; it never had a being ; his- 
tory does not record it, common sense 
revolts at it. It certainly is not neces- 
sary for me to make an ecclesiastical 
argument in favor of this proposition. 
The thing is so plain, that it must in- 
stantly commend itself to your honors. 

It has been said that Mr. Girard was 
charitable. I am not now going to con- 
trovert this. I hope he was. I hope he 
has found his reward. It has also been 
asked, " Cannot Mr. Girard be allowed 
to have his own will, to devise his prop- 
erty according to his own desire? " Cer- 
tainly he can, in any legal devise, and 
the law will sustain him therein. But 
it is not for him to overturn the law of 
the land. The law cannot be akered to 
please Mr. Girard. He found that out, 
I believe, in two or three instances in 
his lifetime. Nor can the law be altered 
on account of the magnitude and mu- 
nificence of «the bounty. What is the 
value of that bounty, however great or 
munificent, which touches the very foun- 
dations of human society, which touches 
the very foundations of Christian char- 
ity, which touches the very foundations 
of public law, and the Constitution, and 
the whole welfare of the state? 



And now, let me ask, A^Tiat is, in con- 
templation of law, "a charity"? The 
word has various significations. In the 
larger and broader sense, it means the 
kindly exercise of the social affections, 
all the good feelings which man enter- 
tains towards man. Charity is love. 
This is that charity of which St. Paul 
speaks, that charity which covereth the 
sins of men, "that suffereth all things, 
hopeth all things." In a more popular 
sense, charity is alms-giving or active 
benevolence. 

But the question for your honors to 
decide here is, What is a charity, or a 
charitable use, in contemplation of law? 
To answer this inquiry, we are generally 
referred to the objects enumerated in the 
43d of Elizabeth. The objects enumer- 
ated in that statute, and others analo- 
gous to them, are charities in the sense 
of equitable jurisprudence. 

There is no doubt that a school of 
learning is a charity. It is one of those 
mentioned in the statutes. Such a school 
of learning as was contemplated by the 
statutes of Elizabeth is a charity ; and 
all such have borne that name and char- 
acter to this day. I mean to confine 
myself to that description of charity, the 
statute charity, and to apply it to this 
case alone. 

The devise before us proposes to es- 
tablish, as its main object, a school of 
learning, a college. There are provis- 
ions, of course, for lodging, clothing, 
and feeding the pupils, but all this is 
subsidiary. The great object is the in- 
struction of the young ; although it pro- 
poses to give the children better food 
and clothes and lodging, and proposes 
that the system of education shall be 
somewhat better than that which is usu- 
ally provided for the poor and destitute 
in our public institutions generally. 

The main object, then, is to establish 
a school of learning for children, begin- 
ning with them at a very tender age, 
and retaining them (namely, from six 
years to eighteen) till they are on the 
verge of manhood, when they will have 
expended more than one third part of 
the average duration of human life. 
For if the college takes them at six, and 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



511 



keeps tliem till they are eighteen, a 
period of twelve years will be j»iissed 
within its walls ; more than a third part 
of the average of human life. The.se 
children, then, are to be taken almost 
before they learn their alphabet, and be 
discharged about the time that men 
enter on the active business of life. At 
six, many do not know their aljihabet. 
tlohn AVesley did not know a letter till 
after he was six years old, and his 
mother then took him on her lap, and 
taught him his alphabet at a single 
lesson. There are many parents who 
think that any attempt to instil the ru- 
diments of education into the mind of a 
diild at an earlier age, is little better 
than labor thrown away. 

The great object, then, which ^Mr. 
Girard seemed to have in view, was to 
take these orphans at this very tender 
age, and to keep them within hi.s walls 
until they were entering manhood. 
And this object I pray your honors 
steadily to bear in mind. 

1 never, in the whole com-se of my 
life, listened to any thing with more 
sincere delight, than to the remarks of 
my learned friend who opened this 
cause, on the nature and character of 
true charity. I agree with every word 
he said on that subject. I ahnost envy 
him his power of expressing so happily 
what his mind conceives so clearly and 
correctly. He is right when he speaks 
of it as an emanation fi'om the Chris- 
tian religion. He is right when he 
says that it has its origin in the word of 
God. He is right when he says that it 
was unknown throughout all the world 
till the first dawn of Christianity. He 
is right, pre-eminently right, in all this, 
as he was pre-eminently happy in his 
])Ower of clothing his thoughts and feel- 
ings in appropriate forms of speech. 
And I maintain, that, in any institu- 
tion for the instruction of youth, where 
the authority of God is disowned, and 
the duties of Christianity derided and 
despised, and its ministers shut out 
from all participation in its proceed- 
ings, there can no more be charity, true 
charity, found to exist, than evil can 
spring out of the Bible, error out of 



truth, or hatred and animosity come 
forth from the bosom of jierfect love. 
No, Sir! No, Sir! If charity denies 
its birth and parentage, if it turns in- 
fidel to the great doctrines of the Chris- 
tian religion, if it turns unbeliever, it is 
no longer charity! There is no longer 
charity, either in a Christian sense or 
in the sense of jurisprudence; for it 
separates itself from the fountain of its 
own creation. 

There is nothing in the history of the 
Christian religion; there is notliing in 
the history of English law, either before 
or after the Conquest; there can be 
found no such thing as a school of in- 
struction in a Christian land, from 
which the Christian religion has been, 
of intent and purpose, rigorously and 
opprobriously excluded, and yet such 
school regarded as a charitable trust or 
foundation. This is the first instance 
on record. I do not say that tliere may 
not be charity schools in which religious 
instruction is not provided. I need not 
go that length, although I take that to 
be tlie rule of the English law. But 
what I do say, and repeat, is, that a 
school for the instruction of the young, 
which sedulously and reproachfully ex- 
cludes Chiistian knowledge, is no char- 
ity, either on principle or authority, 
and is not, therefore, entitled to the 
character of a charity in a court of 
equity. I have considered this proposi- 
tion, and am ready to stand by it. 

I will not say that there may not be a 
charity for instruction, in which there 
is no positive provision for the Chris- 
tian religion. But 1 do say, and do in- 
sist, that there is no such thing in the 
history of religion, no such thing in the 
history of human law, as a charity, a 
school of instruction for children', from 
which the Christian religion and Chris- 
tian teacliers are excluded, as unsafe 
and unwortliy intruders. Sucli a scheme 
is deprived of that which enters into 
the very essence of human benevolence, 
when that benevolence contemplates in- 
struction, tliat is to say, religious knowl- 
edge, connected with human knowl- 
edge. It is this which causes it to be 
regarded as a charity ; and by reason of 



512 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



this it is entitled to the special favor of 
the courts of law. This is the vital 
question which must be decided by this 
court. It is vital to the understanding 
of what the law is, it is vital to the va- 
lidity of this devise. 

If this be true, if there can be no 
charity in that plan of education which 
opposes Christianity, then that goes far 
to decide this case. I take it that this 
court, in looking at this subject, will 
see the important bearing of this point 
upon it. The learned counsel said that 
the State of Pennsylvania was not an 
infidel State. It is true that she is not 
an infidel State. She has a Christian 
origin, a Christian code of laws, a 
system of legislation founded on noth- 
ing else, in many of its important bear- 
ings upon human society, than the 
belief of the j^eople of Pennsylvania, 
their firm and sincere belief, in the di- 
vine authority and great importance of 
the truths of the Christian religion. 
And she should the more carefully seek 
to preserve them pure. 

Now, let us look at the condition and 
prospects of these tender children, who 
are to be submitted to this experiment 
of instruction without Christianity. In 
the first place, they are orphans, have 
no parents to guide or instruct them in 
the way in which they should go, no 
father, no religious mother, to lead them 
to the pure fount of Christianity; they 
are orphans. If they were only poor, 
there might be somebody bound by ties 
of human affection to look after their 
spiritual welfare; to see that they im- 
bibed no erroneous opinions on the sub- 
ject of religion; that they run into no 
excessive improprieties of belief as well 
as conduct. The child would have its 
father or mother to teach it to lisp the 
name of its Creator in prayer, or hymn 
His praise. But in this experimental 
school of instruction, if the orphans 
have any friends or connections able to 
look after their welfare, it shuts them 
out. It is made the duty of the gov- 
ernors of the institution, on taking the 
child, so to make out the indentures of 
apprenticeship as to keep him from any 
after interference in his welfare on the 



part of guardians or relatives ; to keep 
them from withdrawing him from the 
school, or interfering with his instruc- 
tion whilst he is in the school, in any 
manner whatever. 

The school or college is to be sur- 
rounded by high walls ; there are to be 
two gates in these walls, and no more; 
they are to be of iron within, and iron 
bound or covered without ; thus answer- 
ing more to the description of a castle 
than a school-house. The children are 
to be thus guarded for twelve years in 
this, I do not mean to say a prison, nor 
do I mean to say that this is exactly 
close confinement; but it is much closer 
confinement than ordinarily is met with, 
under the rules of any institution at 
present, and has a resemblance to the 
monastic institutions of past ages, rath- 
er than to any school for instruction at 
this period, at least in this country. 

All this is to be within one great en- 
closure ; all that is done for the bodily 
or mental welfare of the child is to be 
done within this great wall. It has 
been said that the children could attend 
public worship elsewhere. Where is 
the proof of this? There is no such 
provision in the devise; there is nothing 
said about it in any part of Mr. Gi- 
rard's will; and I shall show presently 
that any such thing would be just as ad- 
verse to Mr. Girard's whole scheme, as 
it would be that the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity should be preached within the 
walls of the college. 

These children, then, are taken before 
they know the alphabet. They are 
kept till the period of early manhood, 
and then sent out into the world to 
enter upon its business and affairs. By 
this time the character will have been 
stamped. For if there is any truth in 
the Bible, if there is any truth in those 
oracles which soar above all human au- 
thority, or if any thing be established 
as a general fact, by the experience of 
mankind, in this first third of human 
life the character is formed. And what 
sort of a character is likely to be made 
by this process, this experimental sys- 
tem of instruction? 

I have read the two provisions of Mr. 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



513 



Girard's will in relation to this feature 
of his school. The lirst excludes the 
Christian religion and all its ministers 
from its walls. The second explains 
the whole principles upon which he pur- 
poses to conduct his school. It was to 
try an experiment in education, never 
before knovAn to the Christian world. 
It had been recommended often enough 
among those who did not belong to the 
Christian world. But it was never 
known to exist, never adopted by any- 
body even professing a connection with 
Christianity. And I cannot do better, 
in order to show the tendency and ob- 
ject of this institution, than to read 
from a paper by Bishop White, which 
has been referred to by the other side. 

In order to a right understanding of 
what was ^Ir. Girard's real intention 
and original design, we have only to 
read carefully the words of the clause I 
have referred to. He enjoins that no 
ministers of religion, of any sects, shall 
be allowed to enter his college, on any 
pretence whatever. Xow, it is obvious, 
that by sects he means Christian sects. 
Any of the followers of Voltaire or 
D'Alembert may have admission into 
this school whenever they please, be- 
cause they are not usually spoken of as 
" sects." The doors are to be opened 
to the opposers and revilers of Chi-is- 
tianity, in everj- form and shape, and 
shut to its supporters. While the voice 
of the upholders of Christianity is never 
to be heard within the walls, the voices 
of those who impugn Christianity may 
be raised high and loud, till they shake 
the marble roof of the building. It is 
no less derogatory thus to exclude the 
one, and adinit the other, than it would 
be to make a positive provision and all 
the necessary arrangements for lectures 
and lessons and teachers, for all the de- 
tails of the doctrines of infidelity. It is 
equally derogatory, it is the same in 
principle, thus to shut the door to one 
party, and open the door to the other. 

We must reason as to the probable 
results of such a system according to 
natural consequences. They say, on 
the other side, that infidel teachers will 
not be admitted in this school. How 



33 



do they know that ? What is the in- 
evitable tendency of such an education 
as is here prescribed? What is likely 
to occur V The court cannot suppose 
that the trustees will act in opposition 
to the directions of the will. Jf they 
accept the trust, they nmst fulfil it, and 
carry out the details of Mr. Girard's 
plan. 

Now, what is likely to be the effect 
of this system on the minds of these 
children, thus left solely to its perni- 
cious inrtuence, with no one to care U)r 
their spiritual welfare in this world or 
the next? They are to be left entirely 
to the tender mercies of those who will 
try upon them this experiment of moral 
philosophy or philosophical morality. 
Morality without sentiment; benevo- 
lence towards man, without a sense of 
responsibility towards God; the duties 
of this life performed, without any 
reference to the life which is to come; 
this is Mr. Girard's theory of useful 
education. 

Half of these poor children may die 
before the term of their education ex- 
pires. Still, those who survive must 
be brought up imbued fully with the 
inevitable tendencies of the system. 

It has been said that there may 
be lay preachers among them. Lay 
preachers ! This is ridiculous enougli 
in a country of Christianity and relig- 
ion. [Here some one handed Mr. 
Webster a note.] A friend informs me 
that four of the principal religious sects 
in this country, the Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Bap- 
tists, allow no lay preachers; and these 
four constitute a large majority of the 
religious and Christian portion of the 
people of the United States. And, 
besides, lay preaching would be just as 
adverse to Mr. Girard's original object 
and whole plan as professional preach- 
ing, provided it should be Christianity 
which should be preached. 

It is plain, as plain as language can 
be made, that he did not intend to 
allow the minds of these children to be 
troubleil about religion of any kind, 
whilst they were within the college. 
And why ? He himself assigns tlie 



514 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



reason. Because of the difficulty and 
trouble, he says, that might arise from 
the multitude of sects, and creeds, and 
teachers, and the various clashing doc- 
trines and tenets advanced by the differ- 
ent preachers of Christianity. There- 
fore his desire as to these orphans is, 
that their minds should be kept free 
from all bias of any kind in favor of 
any description of Christian creed, till 
tliey arrived at manhood, and should 
have left the walls of his school. 

Now, are not laymen equally sectarian 
in their views with clergymen? And 
would it not be just as easy to prevent 
sectarian doctrines from being preached 
by a clergyman, as from being taught 
by a layman ? It is idle, therefore, to 
speak of lay preaching. 

Mr. Sergeant here rose, and said that 
they on their side had not uttered one word 
about lay preaching. It was lay teaching 
they spoke of. 

Well, I would just as soon take it 
that way as the otlier, teaching as 
preaching. Is not the teaching of lay- 
men as sectarian as the preaching of 
clergymen? What is the difference 
between unlettered laymen and lettered 
clergymen in this respect ? Every one 
knows that laymen are as violent con- 
troversialists as clergymen, and the less 
informed the more violent. So this, 
while it is a little more ridiculous, is 
equally obnoxious. According to my 
experience, a layman is just as likely to 
launch out into sectarian views, and to 
advance clashing docti'ines and violent, 
bigoted prejudices, as a professional 
preacher, and even more so. Every 
objection to professional religious in- 
struction applies with still greater force 
to lay teaching. As in other cases, so 
in this, the greatest degree of candor is 
usually found accompanying the greatest 
degree of knowledge. Nothing is more 
apt to be positive and dogmatical than 
ignorance. 

But there is no provision in any part 
of Mr. Girard's will for tlie introduction 
of any lay teaching on religious matters 
whatever. The children are to get their 
religion when they leave his school, and 



they are to have nothing to do with re- 
ligion before they do leave it. They 
are then to choose their religious opin- 
ions, and not before. 

Mr. Binnet. " Choose their tenets " is 
the expression. 

Tenets are opinions, I believe. The 
mass of one's religious tenets makes up 
one's religion. 

Now, it is evident that Mr. Girard 
meant to found a school of morals, 
without any reference to, or connection 
with, religion. But, after all, there is 
nothing original in this plan of his. It 
has its origin in a deistical source, but 
not from the highest school of infidelity. 
Not from Bolingbroke, or Shaftesbury, 
or Gibbon; not even from Voltaire or 
D'Aleinbert. It is from two persons 
who were probably known to Mr. Gi- . 
rard in the early part of his life; it is 
from Mr. Thomas Paine and Mr. Vol- 
ney. Mr. Thomas Paine, in his " Age 
of Reason," says: " Let us devise means 
to establish schools of instruction, that 
we may banish the ignorance that the 
ancient regime of kings and priests has 
spread among the people. Let us prop- 
agate morality, unfettered by super- 
stition." 

Mr. Binnet. What do you get that 
from ? 

The same place that Mr. Girard got 
this provision of his will from, Paine's 
' ' Age of Reason. ' ' The same phraseol- 
ogy in effect is here. Paine disguised 
his real meaning, it is true. He said: 
"Let us devise means to establish 
schools to propagate morality, unfet- 
tered by superstilion." Mr. Girard, 
who had no disguise about him, uses 
plain langxtage to express the same ' 
meaning. In Mr. Girard's view, i-elig- 
ion is just that thing which Mr. Paine [ 
calls superstition. " Let us establish 
schools of morality," said he, "un- 
fettered by religious tenets. Let us 
give these children a system of pure 
morals before they adopt any religion." , 
The ancient regime of which Paine | 
spoke as obnoxious was that of kings 
and priests. That was the popular 
way he had of making any thing ob- 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



515 



noxious that he wished to destroy. 
Now, if he had merely wislied to get 
rid of the dogmas which he says were 
established by kings and priests, if he 
had no desire to abolish the Christian 
religion itself, he could have thus ex- 
pressed himself: " Let us rid ourselves 
of the errors of kings and priests, and 
jilant morality on the plain text of the 
Christian religion, with the simplest 
forms of religious worship." 

I do not intend to leave tins part of 
the cause, however, without a still more 
distinct statement of the objections to 
this scheme of instruction. This is 
due, I think, to the subject and to the 
occasion; and I trust I shall not be 
considered presumptuous, or as trench- 
ing upon the duties which properly be- 
long to another profession. But I deem 
it due to the cause of Christianity to 
take up the notions of this scheme of 
Mr. Girard, and show how mistaken is 
the idea of calling it a charity. Li the 
first place, then, I say, this scheme is 
derogatory to Christianity, because it 
rejects Christianity from the education 
of youth, by rejecting its teachers, by re- 
jecting the ordinary agencies of instilling 
the Christian religion into the minds 
of the young. I do not say that, in or- 
der to make this a charity, there should 
be a positive provision for the teaching of 
Christianity, although, as I have already 

I observed, I take that to be the rule in 
an English court of equity. But I need 
not, in this case, claim the whole bene- 
fit of that rule. I say it is derogatory, 
because there is a positive rejection of 
Christianity; because it rejects the ordi- 

' nary means and agencies of Christianity. 

: He who rejects the ordinary means of 
accomplishing an end, means to defeat 
that end itself, or else he has no mean- 
ing. And this is true, although the 
means originally be means of human 
ai'iiointment, and not attaching to or 
resting on any higher authority. 

For example, if the Xew Testament 
had contained a set of principles of 
morality and religion, without refer- 
ence to the means by which those prin- 
ciples were to be established, and if in 

I the course of time a system of means 



had sprung up, become identified with 
the history of the world, become general, 
sanctioned by continued usse and custom, 
then he who should reject those means 
would design to reject, and would reject, 
that morality and religion themselves. 

This Would be true in a case where 
the end rested on divine authority, and 
human agency devised and used the 
means. But if the means themselves 
be of divine authority also, then the 
rejection of them is a direct rejection 
of that autliority. 

Xow, I suppose there is nothing in 
the New Testament more clearly estab- 
lished by the Author of Christianity, 
than the appointment of a Clnistiau 
ministry. The world was to be evan- 
gelized, was to be brought out of dark- 
ness into light, by the influences of the 
Christian religion, spread and propa- 
gated by the instrumentality of man. 
A Christian ministry was therefore ap- 
pointed by the Author of the Christian 
religion himself, and it stands on the 
same authority as any other part of his 
religion. Wiien the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel were to be brought to 
the knowledge of Christianity, the dis- 
ciples were commanded to go forth into 
all the cities, and to preach " that the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." It 
was added, that whosoever would not 
receive them, nor hear their words, it 
should be more tolerable for Sodom and 
Gomorrha than for them. And after 
his resurrection, in the appointment of 
the great mission to the whole human 
race, the Author of Christianity com- 
manded his disciples that they sliould 
" go into all the world, and preach the 
Gospel to every creature." This was 
one of his last commands; and one of 
his la.st promi.'^es was the assurance, 
'• Lo, I am with you alvvay, even to 
the end of the world!" I say, there- 
fore, there is nothing set forth more au- 
thentically in the New Testament than 
the appointment of a Christian minis- 
try; and he who does not believe this 
does not and cannot believe tlie rest. 

It is true that Clnistian ministers, in 
this age of the world, are selected in 
different ways and different modes by 



516 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



different sects and denominations. But 
there are, still, ministers of all sects and 
denominations. Why should we shut 
our eyes to the whole history of Chris- 
tianity? Is it not the preaching of 
ministers of the Gospel that has evan- 
gelized the more civilized part of the 
world? Why do we at this day enjoy 
the lights and benefits of Christianity 
ourselves? Do we not owe it to the 
instrumentality of the Christian min- 
istry? The ministers of Christianity, 
departing from Asia Minor, traversing 
Asia, Africa, and Europe, to Iceland, 
Greenland, and the poles of the earth, 
suffering all things, enduring all things, 
hoping all things, raising men every- 
where from the ignorance of idol wor- 
ship to the knowledge of the true God, 
and everywhere bringing life and im- 
mortality to light through the Gospel, 
have only been acting in obedience to 
the Divine instruction ; they were com- 
manded to go forth, and they have gone 
forth, and they still go forth. They 
have sought, and they still seek, to be 
able to preach the Gospel to every crea- 
ture under the whole heaven. And 
where was Christianity ever received, 
where were its truths ever poured into 
the human heart, where did its waters, 
springing up into everlasting life, ever 
burst forth, except in the track of a 
Christian ministry? Did we ever hear 
of an instance, does history record an 
instance, of any part of the globe Chris- 
tianized by lay preachers, or "lay teach- 
ers " ? And, descending from kingdoms 
and empires to cities and countries, to 
parishes and villages, do we not all 
know, that wherever Christianity has 
been carried, and wherever it has been 
taught, by human agency, that agency 
was the agency of ministers of the Gos- 
pel? It is all idle, and a mockery, to 
pretend that any man has respect for 
the Christian religion who yet derides, 
reproaches, and stigmatizes all its min- 
isters and teachers. It is all idle, it is 
a mockery, and an insult to common 
sense, to maintain that a school for the 
instruction of youth, from which Chris- 
tian instruction by Christian teachers is 
sedulously and rigorously shut out, is 



not deistical and infidel both in its 
purpose and in its tendency. I insist, 
therefore, that this plan of education is, 
in this respect, derogatory to Christian- 
ity, in opposition to it, and calculated 
either to subvert or to supersede it. 

In the next place, this scheme of edu- 
cation is derogatory to Christianity, be- 
cause it proceeds upon the presumption 
that the Christian religion is not the 
only true foundation, or any necessary 
foundation, of morals. The ground 
taken is, that religion is not necessary 
to morality, that benevolence may be 
insured by habit, and that all the vir- 
tues may flourish, and be safely left to 
the chance of flourishing, without touch- 
ing the waters of the living spring of 
religious responsibility. With him who 
thinks thus, what can be the value of 
the Christian revelation? So the Chris- 
tian world has not thought; for by that 
Christian world, throughout its broadest 
extent, it has been, and is, held as ai 
fundamental truth, that religion is the 
only solid basis of morals, and that 
moral instruction not resting on this 
basis is only a building upon sand. 
And at what age of the Christian era 
have • those who professed to teach the 
Christian religion, or to believe in its 
authority and importance, not insisted 
on the absolute necessity of inculcating 
its principles and its precepts upon the 
minds of the young? In what age, by 
what sect, where, when, by whom, has 
religious truth been excluded from the 
education of youth? Nowhere; never. 
Everywhere, and at all times, it has 
been, and is, regarded as essential. It 
is of the essence, the vitality, of useful 
instruction. From all this Mr. Girard 
dissents. His plan denies the necessity 
and the propriety of religious instruc- 
tion as a part of the education of youth. 
He dissents, not only from all the senti- 
ments of Christian mankind, from all 
common conviction, and from the re- 
sults of all experience, but he dissents 
also from still higher authority, the 
word of God itself. My learned friend 
has referred, with propriety, to one of 
the commands of the Decalogue; but 
there is another, a first commandment, 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



r 1 '^ 

01 ( 



and that is a precept of religion, and it 
11 is in subordination to this that the 
I moral precepts of the Decalogue are 
proclaimed. This first great coninumd- 
laent teaches man that there is one, and 
unly one, great First Cause, one, and 
(uily one, proper object of human wor- 
ship. This is the great, the ever fresh, 
the overflowing fountain of all revealed 
truth. Without it, human life is a des- 
ert, of no known termination on any 
.-ide, but shut in on all sides by a dark 
and impenetrable horizon. Without the 
lii^lit of this truth, nuxn knows nothing 
(if his origin, and nothing of his end. 
And when the Decalogue was delivered 
til the Jews, with this great announce- 
iiu-nt and command at its head, what 
said the inspired lawgiver? that it should 
lie kept from children? that it should 
lit; reserved as a communication fit only 
fur mature age? Far, far otherwise. 
" And these words, which I command 
thee this day, shall be in thy heart. 
And thou shalt teach them diligently 
unto thy children, and shall talk of 
them when thou sittest in thy house, 
and when thou walkest by the way, 
when thou liest down, and when thou 
rise.st up." 

There is an authority still more im- 
posing and awful. When little children 
were brought into the presence of the 
Son of God, his disciples proposed to 
send them away; but he said, " Suffer 
little children to come unto me." Unto 
me ; he did not send them first for les- 
sons in morals to the schools of the 
Pharisees, or to the unbelieving Saddu- 
cees, nor to read tlie precepts and les- 
sons phylacteried on the garments of the 
Jewish priesthood; he said nothing of 
different creeds or clashing doctrines; 
but he opened at once to the youthful 
mind the everlasting fountain of living 
waters, the only source of eternal truths: 
" Suffer little children to come unto 
me." And that injunction is of perpet- 
ual obligation. It addresses itself to- 
day with the same earnestness and the 
same authority which attended its first 
utterance to the Christian world. It is 
of force everywhere, and at all times. 
It extends to the ends of the earth, it 



will reach to the end of time, always 
and everywhere sounding in the ears of 
men, witli an empluisis which no repeti- 
tion can weaken, and with an authority 
which nothing can supersede: "Suffer 
little children to come unto nn'." 

And not only my heart and my judg- 
ment, my belief and my conscience, in- 
struct me that this great precept should 
be obeyed, but the idea is so sacred, the 
solemn thoughts connected with it so 
crowd upon me, it is so utterly at va- 
riance with this system of philosophical 
morality which we have heard advocated, 
that I stand and speak here in fear of 
being influenced by my feelings to ex- 
ceed the proper line of my professional 
duty. Go thy way at this time, is the 
language of philosophical moralitj', and 
I will send for thee at a more convenient 
season. This is the language of Mr. 
Girard in his will. In this there is 
neither religion nor reason. 

The earliest and the most urgent in- 
tellectual want of human nature is the 
knowledge of its origin, its duty, and 
its destiny. " W^hence am I. what am 
I, and what is before me?" This is 
the cry of the human soul, so soon as it 
raises its contemplation above visible, 
material things. 

When an intellectual being finds him- 
self on this earth, as soon as the facul- 
ties of reason operate, one of tiie first 
inquiries of his mind is, " Shall I be 
here always?" " Shall I live here for 
ever?" And reasoning from what he 
sees daily occurring to others, he learns 
to a certainty that his state of being 
must one day be changed. I do not 
mean to deny, that it may be true that 
he is created with this consciousness; 
but whether it be consciousness, or the 
result of his reasoning faculties, man 
soon learns that he must die. And of 
all sentient beings, he alone, so far as 
we can judge, attains to this knowledge. 
His jNIaker has made him capable of 
learning this. Before he knows his ori- 
gin and destiny, he knows that he is to 
die. Then comes tliat most urgent and 
solemn demand for light that ever pro- 
ceeded, or can proceed, from the pro- 
found and anxious broodings of tl»o 



518 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



human soul. It is stated, with wonder- 
ful force and beauty, in that incom- 
parable composition, the book of Job: 
" For there is hope of a tree, if it be 
cut down, that it will sprout again, and 
that the tender branch thereof will not 
cease; that, through the scent of water, 
it will bud, and bring forth boughs like 
a plant. But if a man die, shall he live 
again? ^^ And that question nothing 
but God, and the religion of God, can 
solve. Religion does solve it, and 
teaches every man that he is to live 
again, and that the duties of this life 
have reference to the life which is to 
come. And hence, since the introduc- 
tion of Christianity, it has been the 
duty, as it has been the effort, of the 
great and the good, to sanctify human 
knowledge, to bring it to the fount, and 
to baptize learning into Christianity; to 
gather up all its productions, its earliest 
and its latest, its blossoms and its fruits, 
and lay them all upon the altar of relig- 
ion and virtue. 

Another important point involved in 
this question is, \^Tiat becomes of the 
Christian Sabbath, in a school thus es- 
tablished? I do not mean to say that 
this stands exactly on the same authori- 
ty as the Christian religion, but I mean 
to say that the observance of the Sab- 
bath is a part of Christianity in all its 
forms. All Christians admit the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath. All admit that 
there is a Lord's day, although there 
may be a difference in the belief as to 
which is tlie riglit day to be observed. 
Now, I say that in this institution, under 
Mr. Girard's scheme, the ordinary ob- 
servance of the Sabbath could not take 
place, because the ordinary means of 
observing it are excluded. I know that 
1 shall be told here, also, that lay teach- 
ers would come in again; and I say 
again, in reply, that, where the ordinary 
means of attaining an end are excluded, 
the intention is to exclude the end itself. 
There can be no Sabbath in this college, 
there can be no religious observance of 
the Lord's day; for there are no means 
for attaining that end. It will be said, 
that the children would be permitted to 
go out. There is nothing seen of this 



permission in Mr. Girard's will. And 
I say again, that it Mould be just as 
much opjiosed to Mr. Girard's whole 
scheme to allow these children to go out 
and attend places of public worship on 
the Sabbath day, as it would be to have 
ministers of religion to preach to them 
within the walls; because, if they go 
out to hear preaching, they will hear just 
as much about religious controversies, 
and clashing doctrines, and more, tlian 
if appointed j^reachers officiated in the 
college. His object, as he states, was to 
keep their minds free from all religious 
doctrines and sects, and he would just 
as much defeat his ends by sending them 
out as by having religious instruction 
within. Where, then, are these little 
children to go? Where can they go to 
learn the truth, to reverence the Sab- 
bath? They are far from their friends, 
they have no one to accompany them to 
any place of worship, no one to show 
them the right from the wrong coui'se ; 
their minds must be kept clear from all 
bias on tlie subject, and they are just as 
far from the ordinary observance of the 
Sabbath as if there were no Sabbath day 
at all. And where there is no observ- 
ance of the Christian Sabbath there will 
of course be no public worship of God. 

In connection with this subject I will 
observe, that there has been recently 
held a large convention of clergymen 
and laymen in Columbus, Ohio, to lead 
the minds of the Christian public to the 
importance of a more particular observ- 
ance of the Christian Sabbath; and I 
will read, as part of my argument, an 
extract from their address, which bears 
with peculiar force upon this case. 

" It is alike obvious that the Sabbath 
exerts its sahitary power by making the 
population acquainted with the being, per- 
fections, and laws of God ; with our rela- 
tions to him as his creatures, and our obli- 
gations to him as rational, accountable 
subjects, and with our cluiracter as sinners, 
for whom his mercy has provided a Saviour; 
under whose government we live to be re- 
strained from sin and reconciled to God, 
and fitted by his word and spirit for the in- 
heritance above. 

" It is by the reiterated instruction and 
impression which the Sabbath imparts to 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 519 



the population of a nation, by the moral 

principle wliich it forms, by the conscience 
which it niaiiitains, by tiie habits of nu'thod, 
cleanliness, and industry it creates, by the 
rest and renovated vij^or it Iwstows on ex- 
hausted human nature, by the lenjj;thened 
life and higher health it alYords, by the 
holiness it inspires, and cheering hopes of 
heaven, and the protection and favor of 
God, which its observance insures, that the 
Sabbath is rendered the moral conservator 
of nations. 

" The omnipresent influence the Sabbath 
e.verts, however, by no secret charm or 
compendious action, upon masses of un- 
thinking minds; but by arresting the 
stream of worldly thoughts, interests, and 
affections, stopping the din of business, un- 
lading the mind of its cares and responsi- 
bilities, and the body of its burdens, while 
God speaks to men, and they attend, and 
hear, and fear, and learn to do his will. 

" You might as well put out the sun, 
and think to enlighten the world with 
tapers, destroy the attraction of gravity, 
and think to wield the universe by human 
powers, as to extinguish the moral illumina- 
tion of the Sabbath, and break this glori- 
ous main-spring of the moral government 
of God." 

And I would ask, Would any Christian 
man consider it desirable for his orphan 
children, after his death, to find refuge 
within this asylum, under all the circum- 
stances and influences which will necessa- 
rily surround its inmates? Are there, or 
will there be, any Christian parents who 
would desire that their children should 
be placed in this school, to be for twelve 
years exposed to the pernicious influ- 
ences which must be brought to bear on 
their minds V I very much doubt if there 
is any Christian father who hears me this 
day, and I am quite sure that there is 
no Christian mother, who, if called upon 
to lie down on the bed of death, al- 
though sure to leave her children as poor 
as children can be left, who would not 
rather trust them, nevertheless, to the 
Christian charity of the world, however 
uncertain it has been said to be, than 
place them where their physical wants 
and comforts would be abundantly at- 
tended to, but away from the solaces 
and consolations, the hopes and the 
grace, of the Christian religion. She 



would rather trust them to the mercy 
and kindness of that spirit, which, when 
it has nothing else left, gives a cup of 
cold water in the name of a disciple ; to 
that spirit which lias its origin in the 
fountain of all good, and of which we 
have on record an example tlie most 
beautiful, the most touching, the most 
intensely affecting, that the world's 
history contains, I mean the offering of 
the poor widow, who threw her two 
mites into the treasury. "And he 
looked up, and saw the rich men cast- 
ing their gifts into the treasury, and he 
saw also a certain poor widow casting in 
thither two mites. And he said, Of a 
truth I say unto you, that this poor 
widow hath cast in more than they all ; 
for all these have, of their abundance, 
cast in unto the offerings of God: but 
she of her penury hath cast in all the 
living that she had." What more ten- 
der, more solemnly affecting, more pro- 
fomidly pathetic, than this charity, this 
offering to God, of a farthing! We 
know nothing of her name, her family, 
or her tribe. We only know that she was 
a poor woman, and a widow, of whonx 
there is nothing left upon record but this 
sublimely simple story, that, when the 
rich came to cast their proud offerings into 
the treasury, this poor woman came also, 
and cast in her two mites, which made a 
farthing ! And that example, thus made 
the subject of divine commendation, has 
been read, and told, and gone abroad 
everywhere, and sunk deep into a hun- 
dred millions of hearts, since the com- 
mencement of the Christian era, and has 
done more good than could be accom- 
plished by a thousand marble palaces, 
because it was charity mingled witli true 
benevolence, given in the fear, the love, 
the service, and honor of God; because 
it was charity, that had its origin in re- 
ligious feeling; because it was a gift to 
the honor of God ! 

Cases have come before the courts, of 
bequests, in last wills, made or given to 
God, without any more specific direc- 
tion ; and these bequests have been re- 
garded as creating charil able uses. But 
can that be truly called a charity which 
flies in the face of all the laws of God 



620 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



and all the usages of Christian man? I 
arraign no man for mixing up a love of 
distinction and notoriety with his chari- 
ties. I blame not Mr. Girard because 
he desired to raise a splendid marble 
palace in the neighborhood of a beauti- 
ful city, that should endure for ages, and 
transmit his name and fame to posterity. 
But his school of learning is not to be 
valued, because it has not the chasten- 
ing influences of true religion; because 
it has no fragrance of the spirit of 
Christianity. It is not a charity, for it 
has not that which gives to a charity for 
education its chief value. It will, there- 
fore, soothe the heart of no Christian 
parent, dying in poverty and distress, 
that those who owe to him their being- 
may be led, and fed, and clothed by 
Mr. Girard's bounty, at the expense of 
being excluded from all the means of 
religious instruction afforded to other 
children, and shut up through the most 
interesting period of their lives in a sem- 
inary without religion, and with moral 
sentiments as cold as its own marble 
waUs. 

I now come to the consideration of 
the second part of this clause in the will, 
that is to say, the reasons assigned by 
Mr. Girard for making these restrictions 
with regard to the ministers of religion ; 
and I say that these are miich more de- 
rogatory to Christianity than the main 
provision itself, excluding them. He 
says that there are such a multitude of 
sects and such diversity of opinion, that 
he will exclude all religion and all its 
ministers, in order to keep the minds of 
the children free from clashing contro- 
versies. Now, does not this tend to sub- 
vert all belief in the utility of teaching 
the Christian religion to youth at allV 
Certainly, it is a broad and bold denial 
of such utility. To say that the evil re- 
sulting to youth from the differences of 
sects and creeds overbalances all the 
benefits which the best education can 
give them, what is this but to say that 
the branches of the tree of religious 
knowledge are so twisted, and twined, 
and commingled, and all run so much 
into and over each other, that there is 



therefore no remedy but to lay the axe 
at the root of the tree itself? It means 
that, and nothing less ! Now, if there 
be any thing more derogatory to the 
Chi'istian religion than this, I should 
like to know what it is. In all this we 
see the attack upon religion itself, made 
on its ministers, its institutions, and its 
diversities. And that is the objection 
urged by all the lower and more vul- 
gar schools of infidelity throughout the 
world. In all these schools, called 
schools of Rationalism in Germany, 
Socialism in England, and by vai-ious 
other names in various countries which 
they infest, this is the imiversal cant. 
The first step of all these philosophical 
moralists and regenerators of the human 
race is to attack the agency through 
which religion and Christianity are ad- 
ministered to man. But in this there is 
nothing new or original. We find the 
same mode of attack and remark in 
Paine's "Age of Reason." At page 
336 he says: " The Bramin, the follower 
of Zoroaster, the Jew, the Mahometan, 
the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, 
the Protestant Church, split into sev- 
eral hundred contradictory sectaries, 
preaching, in some instances, damna- 
tion against each other, all cry out, 
' Our holy religion! ' " 

We find the same view in Volney's 
"Ruins of Empires." Mr. Volney ar- 
rays in a sort of semicircle the different 
and conflicting religions of the world. 
"And first," says he, "surrounded by 
a group in various fantastic dresses, that 
confused mixture of violet, red, white, 
black, and speckled garments, with 
heads shaved, with tonsures, or with 
short hairs, with red hats, square bon- 
nets, pointed mitres, or long beards, is 
the standard of the Roman Pontiff. On 
his right you see the Greek Pontiff, and 
on the left are the standards of two re- 
cent chiefs (Luther and Calvin), who, 
shaking off a yoke that had become ty- 
rannical, had raised altar against altar in 
their reform, and wrested half of Europe 
from the Pope. Behind these are the 
subaltern sects, subdivided from the- 
principal divisions. The Nestorians, 
Eutychians, Jacobites, Iconoclasts, Ana- 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 521 



baptists, Presbyterians, Wickliffites, Osi- 
andriaus, Manicheans, Pietists, Adam- 
ites, the Contemplatives, the Quakers, 
the Weepers, and a hundred others, all 
of distinct parties, persecuting when 
strong, tolerant when weak, liating each 
other in the name of the God of peace, 
forming such an exclusive heaven in a 
religion of universal charity, damning 
each other to pains w'ithout end in a 
future state, and realizing in this world 
the imaginary hell of the other." 

Can it be doubted for an instant that 
sentiments like these are derogatory to 
the Christian religion? And yet on 
grounds and reasons exactly these, not 
like these, but exactly these, Mr. Gi- 
rard founds his excuse for excluding 
Christianity and its ministers from his 
school, lie is a tame copyist, and has 
only raised marble walls to perpetuate 
and disseminate the principles of Paine 
and of Volney. It has been said that 
Mr. Girard was in a difficulty; that he 
was the judge and disposer of his own 
property. We have nothing to do with 
his difficulties. It has been said that he 
must have done as he did do, because 
there could be no agreement otherwise. 
Agreement? among whom? about what? 
He was at liberty to do what he pleased 
with his own. He had to consult no 
one as to what he should do in the mat- 
ter. And if he had wished to establish 
such a charity as might obtain the es- 
pecial favor of the courts of law, he had 
only to frame it on principles not hos- 
tile to the religion of the country. 

But the learned gentleman went even 
further than this, and to an extent that 
I regretted; he said that there was as 
much dispute about the Bible as about 
any thing else in the world. No, thank 
God, that is not the case! 

Mr. Einney. The disputes about the 
meaning of words and passages; you will 
admit that? 

Well, there is a dispute about the 
translation of certain words; but if tliis 
be true, there is just as much dispute 
about it out of Mr. Girard's institution 
as there woiUd be in it. And if this 
plan is to be advocated and sustained, 



why does not every man keep his chil- 
dren from attending all places of public 
worship until they are over eighteen 
years of age? He says that a prudent 
parent keeps his child from the influence 
of sectarian doctrines, by which I sup- 
pose him to mean those tenets that are 
opposed to his own. Well, I do not 
know but what that plan is as likely to 
make bigots as it is to make any thing 
else. 1 grant that the mind of youth 
should be kept pliant, and free from all 
undue and erroneous influences; that it 
should have as nmch play as is consist- 
ent with prudence; but put it where it 
can obtain the elementary principles of 
religious truth; at any rate, those broad 
and general precepts and principles 
which are admitted by all Christians. 
But here in this scheme of Mr. Girard, 
all sects and all creeds are denounced. 
And would not a prudent father rather 
send his child where lie could get in- 
struction under any form of the Chris- 
tian religion, than where he could get 
none at all? There are many instances 
of institutions, professing one leading 
creed, educating youths of different sects. 
The Baptist college in Rhode Island re- 
ceives and educates vouths of all reli"- 
ious sects and all beliefs. The colleges 
all over New England differ in certain 
minor points of belief, and yet that is 
held to be no ground for excluding youth 
with other forms of belief, and other re- 
ligious views and sentiments. 

But this objection to the multitude 
and differences of sects is but tiie old 
story, the old infidel argument. It is 
notorious that there are certain great 
religious truths which are admitted and 
believed by all Christians. All believe 
in the existence of a God. All believe 
in the immortality of the soul. All be- 
lieve in the responsibility, in another 
world, for our conduct in this. All be- 
lieve in the divine authority of the New 
Testament. Dr. Paley says that a single 
word from the New Testament shuts up 
the mouth of human questioning, and 
excludes all hunuui reasoning. And 
cannot all these great truths be taught to 
children without their minds being per- 
plexed with clashing doctrines and sec- 



522 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



tarian controversies? Most certainly 
they can. 

And, to compare secular with relig- 
ious matters, what would become of the 
organization of society, what would be- 
come of man as a social being, in con- 
nection with the social system, if we 
applied this mode of reasoning to him 
in his social relations? We have a con- 
stitutional government, about the pow- 
ers, and limitations, and uses of which 
there is a vast amount of differences of 
belief. Your honors have a body of 
laws, now before you, in relation to 
which differences of opinion, almost in- 
numerable, are daily spread before the 
courts ; in all these we see clashing doc- 
trines and opinions advanced daily, to 
as great an extent as in the religious 
world. 

Apply the reasoning advanced by IVIr. 
Ciirard to human institutions, and you 
will tear them all up by the root ; as you 
would inevitably tear all divine institu- 
tions up by the root, if such reasoning 
is to prevail. At the meeting of the first 
Congress there was a doubt in the minds 
of many of the propriety of opening the 
session with prayer; and the reason as- 
signed was, as here, the great diversity 
of opinion and religious belief. At 
length Mr. Samuel Adams, with his 
gray hairs hanging about his shoulders, 
and with an impressive venerableness 
now seldom to be met with, (I suppose 
owing to the difference of habits,) rose 
in that assembly, and, with the air of a 
perfect Puritan, said that it did not be- 
come men, professing to be Christian 
men, who had come together for solemn 
deliberation in the hour of their exti*em- 
ity, to say that there was so wide a 
difference in their religious belief, that 
they could not, as one man, bow the 
knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose 
advice and assistance they hoped to ob- 
tain. Independent as he was, and an 
enemy to all prelacy as he was known to 
be, he moved that the Rev. Mr. Duche, 
of the Episcopal Church, should address 
the Throne of Grace in prayer. And 
John Adams, in a letter to his wife, 
says that he never saw a more moving 
spectacle. Mr. Duche read the Episco- 



pal service of the Church of England, 
and then, as if moved by the occasion , he 
broke out into extemporaneous prayer. 
And those men, who were then about to 
resort to force to obtain their rights, 
were moved to tears ; and floods of tears, 
Mr. Adams says, ran down the cheeks 
of the pacific Quakers who formed part 
of that most interesting assembly. De- 
pend upon it, where there is a spirit of 
Christianity, there is a spirit which 
rises above forms, above ceremonies, in- 
dependent of sect or creed, and the con- 
troversies of clashing doctrines. 

The consolations of religion can never 
be administered to any of these sick and 
dying children in this college. It is said, 
indeed, that a poor, dying child can be 
carried out beyond the walls of the 
school. He can be carried out to a hos- 
telry, or hovel, and there receive those 
rites of the Christian religion which can- 
not be pei'formed within those walls, 
even in his dying hour ! Is not all this 
shocking? What a stricture is it upon 
this whole scheme ! What an utter con- 
demnation! A dying youth cannot re- 
ceive religious solace within this semi- 
nary of learning! 

But, it is asked, what could Mr. Gi- 
rard have done? He could have done, as 
has been done in Lombardy by the Em- 
peror of Austria, as my learned friend 
has informed us, where, on a large scale, 
the principle is established of teaching 
the elementary principles of the Chris- 
tian religion, of enforcing human duties 
by divine obligations, and carefully ab- 
staining in all cases from interfering 
with sects or the inculcation of sectarian 
doctrines. How have they done in the 
schools of New England? There, as far 
as I am acquainted with them, the great 
elements of Christian truth are taught 
in every school. The Scriptures are 
read, their authority taught and en- 
forced, their evidences explained, and 
praj'ers usually offered. 

The truth is, that those who really 
value Christianity, and believe in its im- 
portance, not only to the spiritual wel- 
fare of man, but to the safety and pros- 
perity of human society, rejoice that in 
its revelations and its teachings there is 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



523 



so mucli wliich mounts above contro- 
versy, and stands on universal acknowl- 
edgment. Wliile many thint;s about it 
are disputed or are dark, they .still jilainly 
see its foundation, and its main pillars; 
and they behold in it a sacred structure, 
rising up to the heavens. They wish 
its general principles, and all its gi-eat 
truths, to be spread over the whole earth. 
But those who do not value Christianity, 
nor believe in its importance to society 
or individuals, cavil about sects and 
schisms, and ring monotonous changes 
upon the shallow and so often refuted 
objections founded on alleged variety of 
discordant creeds and clashing doctrines. 
I shall close this part of my argument 
by reading extracts from an English 
wi'iter, one of the most profound think- 
ers of the age, a friend of reformation 
in the government and laws, John Fos- 
ter, the friend and associate of Robert 
Hall. Looking forward to tlie abolition 
of the present dynasties of the Old 
World, and desirous to see how the 
order and welfare of society is to be pre- 
served in the absence of present conser- 
vative principles, he says : — 

" Undoubtedly the zealous friends of pop- 
ular education account knowledge valuable 
absolutely, as being the apprehension of 
things as they are ; a prevention of delu- 
sions ; and so far a fitness for right voli- 
tions. But they consider religion (besides 
being itself the primary and infinitely the 
most important part of knowledge) as a 
principle indispensable for securing the full 
benefit of all the rest. It is desired, and 
endeavored, that the understandings of 
these opening minds may be taken posses- 
sion of by just and solemn ideas of their 
relation to the Eternal Almighty Being; 
that they may be taught to apprehend it as 
an awful reality, that they are perpetually 
under his inspection ; and, as a cortainty, 
that they must at length appear before him 
in judgment, and find in another life the 
consequences of what they are in spirit and 
conduct here. It is to be impressed on 
them, that his will is the supreme law, that 
his declarations are the most momentous 
truth known on earth, and his favor and 
condemnation the greatest good and evil. 
Under an ascendency of this divine wisdom 
it is, that their discipline in any other 
knowledge is designed to be conducted; so 



that nothing in the mode of their instruc- 
tion may have a tendency contrary to it, 
and every thing be taught in a manner rec- 
ognizing the relation with it, as far as 
shall consist with a natural, unforced way 
of keeping the relation in view. Thus it is 
sought to be secured, that, as the pujiil's 
mind grows stronger, and multijilies its re- 
sources, and lie therefore has necessarily 
more power and means for what is wrong, 
there may be luminously i)resented to him, 
as if celestial eyes visibly beamed upon 
liim, the most solemn ideas tliat can enforce 
what is right. 

" Such IS the discijjline meditated for 
preparing the subordinate classes to pursue 
their individual welfare, and act their part 
as members of the connnunity. . . . 

" All this is to be taught, in many in- 
stances directly, in others by reference for 
confirmation, from the Holy Scriptures, 
from which authority will also be impressed, 
all the while, the principles of religitin. 
And religion, while its grand concern is with 
the state of the soul towards God and eternal 
interests, yet takes every princijile and rule 
of morals under its peremptory sanction ; 
making the primary obligation and responsi- 
bility be towards (jod, uf every thing that 
is a duty with respect to men. So that, 
with the subjects of this education, the 
sense of propriitij shall be conscience; the 
consideration of how they ought to be regu- 
lated in their conduct as a part of the com- 
munity shall be the recollection that their 
Master in heaven dictates the laws of that 
conduct, and will judicially hold them ame- 
nable for every part of it. 

" And is not a disi'ipline thus addressed 
to the ])urpose of fixing religious prineijiles 
in ascendency, as far as that difficult object 
is within the power of discipline, and of in- 
fusing a salutary tincture of them into 
whatever else is taught, the right way to 
bring up citizens faithful to all tliat de- 
serves fidelity in the social compact '. . . . 

" Lay hold on the myriads of juvenile 
spirits before they have time to grow up, 
througli ignorance, into a reckless hostility 
to social order; train them to sense an<l 
good morals ; inculcate the principles of re- 
ligion, 8imj)ly anil solemnly, as religion, as 
a thing directly of divine dictation, and not 
as if its authority were cliiefiy in virtue of 
human institutions ; let the higher orders, 
generally, make it eviilent to the multitude 
that they are desirous to raise them in 
value, and jjromole their happiiu'ss ; and 
then, whatever the demands of the people as 



524 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



a body, thus improving in understanding 
and sense of justice, shall come to be, and 
whatever modification their preponderance 
may ultimately enforce on the great social 
arrangements, it will be infallibly certain 
that tliere never can be a love of disorder, 
an insolent anarchy, a prevailing spirit of 
revenge and devastation. Such a conduct 
of the ascendent ranks would, in this na- 
tion at least, secure that, as long as the 
world lasts, there never would be any 
formidable commotion, or violent sudden 
changes. All those modifications of the 
national economy to which an improving 
people would aspire, and would deserve to 
obtain, would be gradually accomplished, in 
a manner by which no party would be 
wronged, and all would be the happier." ^ 

I not only read this for the excellence 
of its sentiments and their application 
to the subject, but because they are the 
results of the profound meditations of a 
man who is dealing with popular igno- 
rance. Desirous of, and expecting, a 
great change in the social system of the 
Old World, he is anxious to discover 
that conservative principle by which so- 
ciety can be kept together when crowns 
and mitres shall have no more influence. 
And he says that the only conservative 
principle must be, and is, religion! 
the authority of God ! his revealed will ! 
and the influence of the teaching of the 
ministers of Christianity ! 

Mr. Webster here stated that he would, 
on Monday, bring forward certain refer- 
ences and legal points bearing on this view 
of the case. 

The court then adjourned. 

SECOND DAY. 

The seven judges all took their seats at 
eleven o'clock, and the court was opened. 

Mr. Binney observed to the court, that 
he had omitted to notice, in his argument, 
that, in regard to the statutes of Uniformity 
and Toleration in England, whilst the Jew- 
ish Talmuds for the propagation of Juda- 
ism alone were not sustained by those stat- 
utes, yet the Jewish Talmuds for the main- 
tenance of the poor were sustained thereby. 
And the decisions show that, where a gift 
had for its object the maintenance and edu- 
cation of poor Jewish children, the statutes 

1 Foster's Essay on the Evils of Popular 
Ignorance, Section IV. 



sustained the devise. In proof of this he 
quoted 1 Ambler, by Blunt, p. 228, case of 
De Costa, &c. Also, the case of Jacobs v. 
Gomperte, in the notes. Also, in the notes, 
2 Swanston, p. 487, same case of De Costa, 
&c. Also, 7 Vesey, p. 423, case of Mo Catto 
V. Lucardo. Also, Sheppard, p. 107, and 
Boyle, p. 43. 

Another case was that of a bequest given 
to an object abroad, and in the decision the 
Master of the Rolls considered that relig- 
ious instruction was not a necessary part of 
education. See, also, the case of The Attor- 
ney-General V. The Dean and Canons of 
Christ Church, Jacobs, p. 485. 

Mr. Binney then quoted from Noah Web- 
ster the definition of the word " tenets," to 
show that Mr. Webster did not give the 
right definition when he said that " tenets " 
meant "religion." 

Mr. Webster then rose and said : — 

The ai-guraents of my learned friend, 
may it please your honors, in relation to 
the Jewish laws as tolerated by the 
statutes, go to maintain my very propo- 
sition ; that is, that no school for the in- 
struction of youth in any .system which 
is in any way derogatory to the Chris- 
tian religion, or for the teaching of doc- 
trines that are in any way contrary to 
the Christian religion, is, or ever was, 
regarded as a charity by the courts. It 
is true that the statutes of Toleration re- 
garded a devise for the maintenance of 
poor Jewish children, to give them food 
and raiment and lodging, as a charity. 
But a devise for the teaching of the Jew- 
ish religion to poor children, that should 
come into the Court of Chancery, would 
not be regarded as a charity, or entitled 
to any peculiar privileges from the court. 

When I stated to your honors, in the 
course of my argument on Saturday, that 
all denominations of Christians had some 
mode or provision for the appointment of 
teachers of Christianity amongst them, 
I meant to have said something about 
the Quakers. Although we know that 
the teachers among them come into their 
office in a somewhat peculiar manner, 
yet there are preachers and teachers of 
Christianity provided in that peculiar 
body, notwithstanding its objection to 
the mode of appointing teachers and 
preachers by other Christian sects. The 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



525 



place or character of a Quaker preacher 
is ail office and appointment as well 
known as that of a preacher among any 
othei; denomination of Chris-tians. 

I have heretofore argued to show that 
the Christian religion, its general prin- 
ciples, must ever be regarded among us 
as the foundation of civil society ; and I 
have thus far confined my remarks to 
the tendency and effect of the scheme of 
Mr. Girard (if carried out) upon the 
Christian religion. But I will go far- 
ther, and say that this school, this scheme 
or system, in its tendencies and effects, 
is opposed to all religions, of every kind. 
I will not now enter into a controversy 
with my learned friend alx)ut the word 
"tenets." whether it signify opinions 
or dogmas, or whatever you please. Re- 
ligious tenets, I take it, and I suppose 
it will be generally conceded, mean re- 
ligious opinions ; and if a youth has ar- 
rived at the age of eighteen, and has 
no religious tenets, it is very plain that 
he has no religion. I do not care 
whether you call them dogmas, tenets, 
or opinions. If the youth does not en- 
tei'tain dogmas, tenets, or opinions, or 
opinions, tenets, or dogmas, on relig- 
ious subjects, then he has no religion at 
all. And this strikes at a broader prin- 
ciple than when you merely look at this 
school in its effect upon Christianity 
alone. We will suppose the case of a 
youth of eighteen, who has just left this 
school, and has gone through an educa- 
tion of philosophical morality, precisely 
in accordance with the views and ex- 
pressed wishes of the donor. He comes 
then into the world to choose his relig- 
ious tenets. The very next day, per- 
haps, after leaving school, he comes into 
a court of law to give testimony as a 
witness. Sir, I protest that by such a 
system he would be disfranchised. He 
is asked, "What is your religion?" 
His reply is, " O, I have not yet chosen 
any; I am going to look round, and see 
which suits me best." He is asked, 
"Are you a Christian?" He replies, 
" That involves religious tenets, and as 
yet I have not been allowed to entertain 
any." Again, "Do you believe in a 
future state of rewards and punish- 



ments? " And he answers, "That in- 
volves sectarian controversies, whicli 
have carefully been kept from me." 
"Do you believe in the existence of a 
God?" He answers, that there are~ 
clashing doctrines involved in these 
things, which he has been taught to have 
nothing to do with; that the belief in 
the existence of a God, being one of the 
first questions in religion, he is shortly 
about to think of that proposition. Why, 
Sir, it is vain to talk about the destruc- 
tive tendency of such a system ; to argue 
upon it is to insult the understanding of 
every man ; it is mere, sheer, low, ribald, 
vulfjnr deism and infidelity!^ It opposes 
all that is in heaven, and all on earth 
that is worth being on earth. It de- 
stroys the connecting link between the 
creature and the Creator; it opposes that 
great system of universal benevolence 
and goodness that binds '"man to his 
Maker. No religion till he is eighteen! 
What would be the condition of all our 
families, of all our children, if religious 
fathers and religious mothers were to 
teach their sons and daughters no re- 
ligious tenets till they were eighteen? 
What would become of their morals, 
their character, their purity of heart and 
life, their hope for time and eternity? 
What would become of all those thou- 
sand ties of sweetness, benevolence, love, 
and Christian feeling, that now render 
our young men and young maidens like 
comely plants growing up by a stream- 
let's side, — the graces and the grace of 
opening manhood, of blossoming wo- 
manhood ? What would become of all 
that now renders the social circle lovely 
and beloved ? What would become of 
society itself? How could it exist? 
And is that to be considered a charity 
which strikes at the root of all this; 
which subverts all the excellence and 
the charms of social life; which tends 
to destroy the very foundation and 
frame-work of society, both in its 
practices and in its opinions; wliich 
subverts the whole decency, the whole 
morality, as well as the whole Christiaii- 

1 The effect of this remark was ahiiost elec- 
tric, and some one in the court-room broke out 
in applause. 



526 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



ity and government, of society ? No, 
Sir! no. Sir! 

And here let me turn to the consider- 
ation of the question, AVTiat is an oath '? 
I do not mean in the variety of defini- 
tions that may be given to it as it ex- 
isted and was pi'actised in the time of 
the Romans, but an oath as it exists at 
present in our courts of law; as it is 
founded on a degree of consciousness 
that there is a Power above us that will 
reward our virtues and punish our vices. 
We all know that the doctrine of the 
English law is, that in the case of every 
person who enters court as a witness, be 
he Christian or Hindoo, there must be a 
firm conviction on his mind that false- 
hood or perjury will be punished, either 
in this world or the next, or he cannot 
be admitted as a witness. If he has not 
this belief, he is disfranchised. In proof 
of this, I refer your honors to the great 
case of Ormichund against Barker, in 
Lord Chief Justice Willes's report. There 
this doctrine is clearly laid down. But 
in no case is a man allowed to be a wit- 
ness that has no belief in future rewards 
and punishments for virtues or vices, nor 
ought he to be. We hold life, liberty, 
and property in this country upon a sys- 
tem of oaths ; oaths founded on a relig- 
ious belief of some sort. And that sys- 
tem which would strike away the great 
substratum, destroy the safe possession 
of life, liberty, and property, destroy all 
the institutions of civil society, cannot 
and will not be considered as entitled to 
the protection of a court of equity. It 
has been said, on the other side, that 
there was no teaching against religion or 
Christianity in this system. I deny it. 
The whole testament is one bold procla- 
mation against Christianity and religion 
of every creed. The children are to be 
brought up in the principles declared in 
that testament. They are to learn to be 
suspicious of Christianity and religion ; 
to keep clear of it, that their youthful 
heart may not become susceptible of the 
influences of Christianity or religion in 
the slightest degree. They are to be 
told and taught that religion is not a 
matter for the heart or conscience, but 
for the decision of the cool judgment of 



mature years ; that at that period when 
the whole Christian world deem it most 
desirable to instil the chastening influ- 
ences of Christianity into the tender and 
comparatively pure mind and heart of 
the child, ere the cares and corruptions 
of the world have reached and seared 
it, — at that period the child in this col- 
lege is to be carefully excluded there- 
from, and to be told that its influence 
is pernicious and dangerous in the ex- 
treme. ^Miy, the whole system is a con- 
stant preaching against Christianity and 
against religion, and I insist that there 
is no charity, and can be no charity, in 
that system of instruction fi'om which 
Christianity is excluded. I perfectlyAj 
agree with what my learned friend says 
in regard to the monasteries of the Old 
World, as seats of learning to which 
we are all indebted at the present day. 
Much of our learning, almost all of our 
early histories, and a vast amount of 
literary treasure, were preserved therein 
and emanated therefrom. But we all 
know, that although these were emphat- 
ically receptacles for literature of the 
highest order, yet they were always con- 
nected with Christianity, and were al- 
ways regarded and conducted as relig- 
ious establishments. 

Going back as far as the statutes of 
Henry the Fourth, as early as 1402,1 in 
the act respecting charities, we find that 
one hundred years before the Reforma- 
tion, in Catholic times, in the establish- 
ment of every charitable institution, 
there was to be proper provision for re- 
ligious instruction. Again, after the 
time of the Reformation, when those 
monastic institutions were abolished, in 
the 1st Edw. VI. ch. 1-i, we find certain 
cliantries abolished, and their funds ap- 
propriated to the instruction of youth in 
the grammar schools founded in that 
reign, which Lord Eldon says extended 
all over the kingdom. In all these we 
find provision for religious instruction, 
the dispensation of the same being by a 
teacher or preacher. In 2 Swanston, 
p. 529, the case of the Bedford Charity, 
Lord Eldon gives a long opinion, in the 
course of which he says, that in these 
1 2 Pickering, p. 433. 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



527 



schools care is taken to educate youth in 
the Christian religion, and in all of them 
the New Testament is taught, both in 
Latin and Greek. Here, then, we find 
that the great and leading provision, 
both before and after the Reformation, 

^-■was to connect the knowledge of Chris- 
tianity with human letters. And it will 
be always found that a school for in- 

' struction of youth, to possess the privi- 

' leges of a charity, must be provided with 
religious instruction. 

'" For the decision, that the essentials of 
Christianity are part of the common law 
of the land. I refer your honors to 1 Ver- 
non, p. 2d'-i, where Lord Hale, who can- 
not be suspected of any bigotry on this 
subject, says, that to decry religion, and 
call it a cheat, tends to destroy all re- 
ligion ; and he also declares Christianity 
to be part of the common law of the 
land. Mr. X. Dane, in his Abridgment, 
ch. 219, recognizes the same principle. 
In 2 Strange, p. 834, case of The King u. 
Wilson, the judges would not suffer it to 
be debated that writing against religion 
generally is an offence at common law. 
They laid stress upon the word " gener- 
ally," because there might arise differ- 
ences of opinion between religious writ- 
ers on points of doctrine, and so forth. 
So in Taylor's case, 3 Merivale, p. 405, 
by the High Court of Chancery, these 
doctrines were recognized and main- 
tained. The same doctrine is laid down 
in 2 Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 95, 
Evans v. The Chamberlain of London; 
and in 2 Russell, p. 501, The Attorney- 
General V. The Earl of Mansfield. 

There is a case of recent date, which, 
if the English law is to prevail, would 
seem conclusive as to the character of 
this devise. It is the case of The Attor- 
ney-General I'. Cullum, 1 Younge and 
Collyer's Reports, p. 411. The case was 
heard and decided in 1842, by Sir Knight 
Bruce, Vice-Chancellor. The reporter's 
abstract, or summary, of the decision is 
this: "Courts of equity, in this 

COUNTRY, WILL NOT SANCTION ANY 
SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN WHICH RE- 
LIGION IS NOT INCLUDED." 

The charity in question in that case 
was established in the reign of Edward 



the Fourth, for the benefit of the com- 
munity and poor inhabitants of the town 
of Bury St. Edmunds. The objects of 
the charity were various: for relief of 
prisoners, educating and instructing 
poor people, for food and raiment for 
the aged and impotent, and others of 
the same kind. There were uses, also, 
now deemed su[)erstitious, such as pray- 
ing for the souls of the dead. In this, 
and in other respects, the charity re- 
quired revision, to suit it to the habits 
and requirements of modern times; and 
a scheme was accordingly set forth for 
such revision by the master, under the 
direction of the court. By this scheme 
there were to be schools, and these 
schools were to be closed on Sundays, 
although the Scriptures were to be read 
daily on other days. This was objected 
to, and it was insisted, on the other 
hand, that the masters and mistresses 
of the schools should be members of the 
Church of England; that they should, 
on every Lord's day, give instruction 
in the doctrines of the Churcli to those 
children whose parents might so desire; 
but tliat all the scholars should be re- 
quired to attend public worship every 
Lord's day in the parish church, or other 
place of ivorskip, according to their respec- 
tive creeds. 

The Vice-Chancellor said, that the 
term " education " was properly under- 
stood, by all the parties, to comprehend 
religious instruction ; that the objection 
to the scheme proposed by the master 
was not that it did not provide for re- 
ligious instruction according to the doc- 
trines of the Church of England, but 
that it did not provide for religious in- 
struction at all. In the course of the 
hearing, the Vice-Chancellor said, that 
any scheme of education, without relig- 
ion, would be worse than a mockery. 
The parties afterwards agreed, that the 
masters and mistresses should be mem- 
bers of the Church of England; that 
every school day the master should give 
religious instruction, during one hour, 
to all the scholars, such religious instruc- 
tion to be conjined to the reading and ex- 
planation of the Scriptures; that on every 
Lord's day he should give instruction in 



528 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



the liturgy, catechism, and articles of 
the Church of England, and that the 
scholars should attend church every 
Lord's day, unless the// were children of 
persons not in communion vnth the Church 
of England . In giving the sanction of 
the court to this arrangement, the Vice- 
Chancellor said, that he wished to have 
it distinctly understood that the ground 
on wliich he had proceeded was not a 
preference of one form of religion to 
another, but the necessity, if the matter 
was left to him judicially, to adopt the 
course of requiring the teachers to be 
members of the Church of England. 

This case clearly shows, that, at the 
present day, a school, founded by a char- 
ity, for the instruction of children, can- 
not be sanctioned by the courts as a 
charity, unless tlie scheme of education 
includes religious instruction. It shows, 
too, that this general requisition of the 
law is independent of a church estab- 
lishment, and that it is not religion in 
any particular form, but religion, relig- 
ious and Christian instruction in some 
form, which is held to be indispensable. 
It cannot be doubted how a charity for 
the instruction of children would fare in 
an English court, the scheme of which 
should carefully and sedulously exclude 
all religious or Christian instruction, 
and profess to establish morals on prin- 
ciples no higher than those of enlight- 
ened Paganism. 

Enough, then, your honors, has been 
said on this point; and I am willing that 
inquiry should be prosecuted to any ex- 
tent of research to controvert this posi- 
tion, that a school of education for the 
young, which rejects the Christian relig- 
ion, cannot be sustained as a charity, so 
as to entitle it to come before the courts 
of equity for the privileges which they 
have power to confer on charitable be- 
quests. 

Mr. Webster then replied to the remarks 
of Mr. Binney, in relation to the Liverpool 
Blue Coat School, and read from the report 
of Mr. Bache on education in Europe, Mr. 
Bache having been sent abroad by the city 
of Philadelphia to investigate tliis whole 
matter of education. 

If Mr. Girard had established such a 



school as that, it would have been free 
from all those objections that have been 
raised against it. This Liverpool Blue 
Coat School, though too much of a relig- 
ious party character, is strictly a church 
establishment. It is a school established 
on a peculiar foundation, that of the 
Madras system of Dr. Bell. It is a 
monitorial school; those who are ad- 
vanced in learning are to teach the 
others in religion, as well as secular 
knowledge. It is strictly a religious 
school, and the only objection is, that 
in its instruction it is too much confined 
to a particular sect. 

Mr. Binney observed that there was no 
provision made for clergymen. 

That is true, because the scheme of 
the school is monitorial, in wdiich the 
more advanced scholars instruct the 
others. But religious instruction is am- 
ply and particularly provided for. 

Mr. Webster then referred to Shelford, 
p. lOo, and onward, under the head " Jews," 
in the fourth paragraph, where, he stated, 
tlie whole matter, and all the cases, as re- 
garded the condition and position of the 
Jews respecting various charities, were 
given in full. 

He then referred to the Smithsonian leg- 
acy, whieh had been mentioned, and which 
he said was no charity at all, nor any thing 
like a charity. It was a gift to Congress, 
to be disposed of as Congress saw tit, for 
scientific purposes. 

He then replied, in a few words, to the 
arguments of Mr. Binney in relation to the 
University of Virginia; and said that, al- 
though there was no provision for religious 
instruction in that University, yet he sup- 
posed it would not be contended for a mo- 
ment that the University of Virginia was a 
charity, or that it came before the courts 
claiming of the law of that State protection 
as such. It stood on its charter. 

I repeat again, before closing this part 
of my argument, the proposition, impor- 
tant as I believe it to be, for your hon- 
ors' consideration, that the proposed 
school, in its true character, objects, 
and tendencies, is derogatory to Chris- 
tianity and religion. If it be so, then I 
maintain that it cannot be considered a 
charity, and as such entitled to the just 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



529 



protection and support of a court of 
equity. I consider this the great ques- 
tion for the consideration of this court. 
I may be excused for pressing it on the 
attention of your honors. It is one 
which, in its decision, is to influence tlie 
happiness, the temporal and the eternal 
welfare, of one hundred millions of hu- 
man beings, alive and to be born, in this 
land. Its decision will give a hue to the 
apparent character of our institutions; 
it will be a comment on their spirit to 
the whole Christian world. I asrain 
press the question to your honors : Is a 
clear, plain, positive system for the instruc- 
tion of children, founded on clear and 
plain objects of infidelity, a charity in the 
eye of the law, and as such entitled to the 
privileges awarded to charities in a court 
of equity? And with this, I leave this 
part of the case. 

THIRD DAY. 

I shall now, may it please your hon- 
ors, proceed to inquire whether there is, 
in the State of Pennsylvania, any set- 
tled public policy to which this school, as 
planned by Mr. Girard in his will, is in 
opposition ; for it follows, that, if there 
be any settled public policy in the laws 
of Pennsylvania on this subject, then 
any school, or scheme, or system, which 
tends to subvert this public policy, can- 
not be entitled to the protection of a 
court of equity. It will not be denied 
that there is a general public policy in 
that, as in all States, drawn from its 
hi.stoi-y and its laws. And it will not 
be denied that any scheme or school of 
education which directly opposes this is 
not to be favored by the courts. Penn- 
sylvania is a free and independent State. 
She has a popular government, a sys- 
tem of trial by jury, of free suffrage, of 
vote by ballot, of alienability of prop- 
erty. All tliese form part of the general 
public policy of Pennsylvania. Any 
man who shall go into that State can 
speak and write as much as he pleases 
against a popular form of government, 
freedom of suffrage, trial by jury, and 
against any or all of the institutions 
just named; he may decry civil liberty, 



34 



and assert the divine right of kings, and 
still he does nothing criminal; but if, 
to give success to such efforts, special 
power from a court of justice is required, 
it will not be granted to him. There is 
not one of these features of the general 
public policy of Pennsylvania against 
which a school might not be established 
and preachers and teachers employed to 
teach. That might in a certain sense 
be considered a school of education, but 
it would not be a charity. And if Mr. 
Girard, in his lifetime, had founded 
schools and employed teachers to preach 
and teach in favor of infidelity, or against 
popular government, free suffrage, trial 
by jury, or tiie alienability of property, 
there was nothing to stop him or prevent 
him from so doing. But where any one 
or all of these come to be provided for a 
school or system as a charity, and come 
before the courts for favor, then in nei- 
ther one, nor all, nor any, can they be 
favored, because they are opposed to the 
general public policy and public law of 
the State. 

These great principles have always 
been recognized; and they are no more 
part and parcel of the public law of 
Pennsylvania than is the Christian re- 
ligion. We have in the charter of 
Pennsylvania, as prepared by its great 
founder, William Penn, — we have in his 
"great law," as it was called, the dec- 
laration, that the preservation of Chris- 
tianity is one of the great and leading 
ends of government. This is declared 
in the charter of the State. Then the 
laws of Pennsylvania, the statutes 
against blasphemy, the violation of the 
Lord's day, and others to the same 
effect, proceed on this great, broad 
principle, that the preservation of Chris- 
tianity is one of the main ends of gov- 
ernment. This is the general public 
policy of Pennsylvania. On this head 
we have the case of Updegraph v. The 
Commonwealth,! in which a decision in 
accordance with this whole doctrine was 
given by the Supreme Court of Penn- 
sylvania. The solemn opinion pro- 
nounced by that tribunal begins by a 
general declaration that Chri-stianity is, 
! 11 StTfjcaiit & liawlu, p. 3U-1. 



530 



THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



and has always been, part of the com- 
mon law of Pennsylvania. 

I have said, your honors, that our 
system of oaths in all our courts, by 
which we hold liberty and property, 
and all our rights, is founded on or 
rests on Christianity and a religious 
belief. In like manner the affirmation 
of Quakers rests on religious scruples 
drawn from the same source, the same 
feeling of religious responsibility. 

The courts of Pennsylvania have 
themselves decided that a charitable 
bequest, which counteracts the public 
policy of the State, cannot be sustained. 
This was so ruled in the often cited case 
of the Methodist Church v. Remington. 
There, the devise was to the Methodist 
Church generally, extending through 
the States and into Canada, and the 
trust was declared void on this account 
alone; namely, that it was inconsistent 
with the public policy of the State, 
inconsistent with the general spirit of 
the laws of Pennsylvania. But is there 
any comparison to be made between 
that ground on which a devise to a 
church is declared void, namely, as in- 
consistent with the public policy of the 
State, and the case of a devise which 
undermines and opposes the whole 
Christian religion, and derides all its 
ministers; the one tending to destroy 
all religion, and the other being merely 
against the spirit of the legislation and 
laws of the State, and the general public 
policy of government, in a very subordi- 
nate matter? Can it be shown that this 
devise of a piece of ground to the Meth- 
odist Church can be properly set aside, 
and declared void on general grounds, 
and not be shown that such a devise as 
that of Mr. Girard, which tends to over- 
turn as well as oppose the public policy 
and laws of Pennsylvania, can also be 
set aside? 

Sir, there are many other American 
cases which I could cite to the court in 
support of this point of the case. I will 
now only refer to 8 Johnson, page 291. 

It is the same in Pennsylvania as 
elsewhere, the general principles and 
public policy are sometimes established 
by constitutional provisions, sometimes 



by legislative enactments, sometimes by 
judicial decisions, and sometimes by 
general consent. But however they 
may be established, there is nothing 
that we look for with more certainty 
than this general principle, that Chris- 
tianity is part of the law of the land. 
This was the case among the Puritans 
of New England, the Episcopalians of 
the Southern States, the Pennsylvania 
Quakers, the Baptists, the mass of the 
followers of Whitefield and Wesley, and 
the Presbyterians; aU brought and all 
adopted this great truth, and all have 
sustained it. And where there is any 
religious sentiment amongst men at all, 
this sentiment incorporates itself with 
the law. Every th'mg declares it. The 
massive cathedral of the Catholic; the 
Episcopalian church, with its lofty spire 
pointing heavenward ; the plain temple 
of the Quaker; the log church of the 
hardy pioneer of the wilderness; the 
mementos and memorials around and' 
about us; the consecrated graveyards, 
their tombstones and epitaphs, tlieir 
silent vaults, their mouldering contents; 
all attest it. The dead prove it as well 
as the living. The generations that are 
gone before speak to it, and pronounce 
it from the tomb. We feel it. All, all, 
proclaim that Christianity, general, tol- 
erant Christianity, Christianity inde- 
pendent of sects and parties, that Chris- 
tianity to which the sword and the fagot 
are unknown, general, tolerant Chris- 
tianity, is the law of the land. 

Mr. Webster, having gone over the other 
points in the case, which were of a more 
technical character, in conclusion, said : — 

I now take leave of this cause. I 
look for no good whatever from the es- 
tablishment of this school, this collet". 
this scheme, this experiment of ;iii 
education in " practical morality," un- 
blessed by the influences of religion. 
It sometimes happens to man to attain 
by accident that which he could not 
achieve by long-continued exercise of 
industry and ability. And it is said 
even of the man of genius, that by 
chance he will sometimes " snatch a 
grace beyond the reach of art." And 



AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 



531 



I believe that men sometimes do mis- 
chief, not only beyond their intent, 
but beyond the ordinary scope of their 
talents and ability. In my opinion, if 
Mr. Girard had given years to the study 
of a mode by which he could dispose of 
his vast fortune so that no good could 
arise to the general cause of charity, no 
good to the general cause of learning, 
no good to human society, and which 
sliould be most productive of protracted 
struggles, troubles, and difficulties in 
tlie popular counsels of a great city, he 
could not so effectually have attained 
that result as he has by this devise now 
before the court. It is not the result 
of good fortunes, but of bad fortunes, 



which have overriden and cast down 
whatever of good might have been ac- 
complished by a different disposition. 
I believe that this plan, this scheme, 
was unblessed in all its purposes, and 
in all its original plans. Unwise in all 
its frame and theory, while it lives it 
will lead an annoyed and troubled life, 
and leave an unblessed memory when it 
dies. If I could persuade myself that 
this court would come to such a decision 
as, in my opinion, the public good and 
the law require, and if I could believe 
that any humble efforts of my own had 
contributed in the least to lead to such 
a result, I should deem it the crowning 
mercy of my professional life. 



MR. JUSTICE STORY.* 



[At a meeting of the Suffolk Bar, held 
in the Circuit Court Eoom, Boston, on the 
morning of the 12th of September, the day 
of the funeral of Mr. Justice Story, Chief 
Justice Shaw having taken the chair and 
announced the object of the meeting, Mr. 
Webster rose and spoke substantially as 
follows.] 

Youii solemn announcement, Mr. 
Chief Justice, has confirmed the sad 
intelligence which had already reached 
us, through the public channels of in- 
formation, and deeply afflicted us all. 

Joseph Story, one of the Associate 
Justices of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and for many years the 
presiding judge of this Circuit, died on 
Wednesday evening last, at his house 
in Cambridge, wanting only a few days 
for the completion of the sixty-sixth 
year of his age. 

This most mournful and lamentable 
event has called together the whole Bar 
of Suffolk, and all connected with the 
courts of law or the profession. It has 
brought you, Mr. Chief Justice, and 
your associates of the Bench of the Su- 
preme Court of Massaclmsetts, into the 
midst of us ; and you have done us the 
honor, out of respect to the occasion, to 
consent to preside over us, while we 
deliberate on what is due, as well to 
our own afflicted and smitten feelings, 
as to the exalted character and eminent 
distinction of the deceased judge. The 
occasion has drawn from his retirement, 

1 The following letter of dedication to the 
mother of Judge Story accompanied these re- 
marks in the original edition : — 

^^ Boston, September lb, 1845. 

" Venerable Madam, — I pray j'ou to 
allow me to present to you the brief remarks 
which I made before the Suffolk Bar, on the 
12th instant, at a meeting occasioned by the 
sudden and afflicting death of your distinguished 



also, that venerable man, whom we all 
so much respect and honor, (Judge 
Davis,) who was, for thirty years, the 
associate of the deceased upon the sanm 
Bench. It has caUed hither another 
judicial personage, now in retirement, 
(Judge Putnam,) but long an ornament 
of that Bench of which you are now the 
head, and whose marked good fortune 
it is to have been the professional teach- 
er of Mr. Justice Story, and the director 
of his early studies. He also is present 
to whom this blow comes near; I mean, 
the learned judge (Judge Sprague) from 
whose side it has struck away a friend 
and a highly venerated official associate. 
The members of the Law School at 
Cambridge, to which the deceased was 
so much attached, and who returned 
that attachment with all the ingenuous- 
ness and enthusiasm of educated and 
ardent youthful minds, are here also, to 
manifest their sense of their own severe 
deprivation, as well as their admiration 
of the bright and shining professional 
example which they have so loved to 
contemplate, — an example, let me say 
to them, and let me say to all, as a 
solace in the midst of their sorrows, 
which death hath not touched and which 
time cannot obscure. 

Mr. Chief Justice, one sentiment jier- 
vades us all. It is that of the most 
profound and penetrating grief, mixed, 
nevertheless, with an assured convic- 

son. I trust, dear Madam, that as you enjoyed 
through his whole life constant proofs of his 
profound respect and ardent filial affection, so 
you may yet live long to enjoy the remembrance- 
of his virtues and his exalted reputation. 
" I am, with very great regard, 

" Your obedient servant, 

" Daniel Webster. 
"To Madam Stoky." 



MR. JUSTICE STORY. 



533 



tioii, tluit the gi'eat man whom we de- 
plore is yet with us and in the midst of 
us. He hath not wholly died. He lives 
in the affections of friends and kindred, 
and in the high regard of the community. 
He lives in our remembrance of his so- 
cial virtues, his warm and steady friend- 
sliips, and the vivacity and richness of 
his conversation. He lives, and will live 
still more permanently, by his words of 
written wisdom, by the results of his 
vast researches and attainments, by his 
imperishable legal judgments, and by 
those juridical disquisitions wliich have 
stamped his name, all over the civilized 
world, with the character of a com- 
manding authority. " Vivit, enim, 
vivetque semper; atque etiam latius in 
memoria hominum et sermone versabi- 
tur, postquam ab oculis recessit." 

Mr. Chief Justice, there are consola- 
tions which arise to mitigate our loss, 
and shed the influence of resignation 
over unfeigned and heart-felt sorrow. 
We are all penetrated with gratitude to 
God that the deceased lived so long; 
that he did so much for himself, his 
friends, the country, and the world; 
that his lamp went out, at last, without 
luisteadiness or flickering. He contin- 
ued to exercise every power of his mind 
without dimness or obscuration, and 
every affection of his heart with no 
abatement of energy or warmth, till 
death drew an impenetrable veil be- 
tween us and him. Indeed, he seems 
to us now, as in truth he is, not extin- 
guished or ceasing to be, but only with- 
drawn; as the clear sun goes down at 
its setting, not darkened, but only no 
longer seen. 

This calamity, Mr. Chief Justice, is 
not confined to the bar or the courts of 
this Commonwealth. It will be felt by 
every bar throughout the land, by every 
court, and indeed by every intelligent 
and well-informed man in or out of the 
profession. It will be felt still more 
widely, for his reputation had a still 
wider range. In the High Court of 
Tarliament, in every tribunal in West- 
minster Hall, in the judicatories of 
Paris and Berlin, of Stockholm and St. 
Petersburg, in the learned universities 



of Germany, Italy, and Spain, by every 
eminent jurist in the civilized world, it 
will be acknowledged that a great lumi- 
nary has fallen from the firmament of 
public jurisprudence. 

Sir, there is no purer pride of country 
than that in which we may indulge 
when we see America paying back the 
great debt of civilization, learning, and 
science to Europe. In this high return 
of light for light and mind for mind, in 
this august reckoning and accounting 
between the intellects of nations, Joseph 
Story was destined by Providence to 
act, and did act, an important part. 
Acknowledging, as we all acknowledge, 
our obligations to the original sources 
of English law, as well as of civil lib- 
erty, we have seen in our generation 
copious and salutary streams turning 
and running backward, replenishing 
their original fountains, and giving a 
fresher and a brighter green to the fields 
of English jurisprudence. By a sort of 
reversed hereditary transmission, the 
mother, without envy or humiliation, 
acknowledges that she has received a 
valuable and cherished inheritance from 
the daughter. The profession in Eng- 
land admits with frankness and candor, 
and witli no feeling but that of respect 
and admiration, that he whose voice we 
have so recently heard within these 
walls, but shall now hear no more, was, 
of all men who have yet appeared, most 
fitted by the comprehensiveness of his 
mind, and the vast extent and accuracy 
of his attainments, to compare the codes 
of nations, to trace their differences to 
difference of origin, climate, or religious 
or political institutions, and to exhibit, 
nevertheless, their concurrence in those 
great principles upon which the system 
of human civilization rests. 

Justice, Sir, is the great interest of 
man on earth. It is the ligament which 
holds civilized beings and civilized na- 
tions together. Wherever her temjile 
stands, and so long as it is duly honored, 
there is a foundation for social security, 
general happiness, and the improvement 
and progress of our race. And whoever 
labors on this edifice with usefulness 
and distinction, wlioever clears its foun- 



534 



MR. JUSTICE STORY. 



dations, strengthens its pillars, adorns 
its entablatures, or contributes to raise 
its august dome still higher in the skies, 
connects himself, in name, and fame, 
and character, with that which is and 
must be as durable as the frame of hu- 
man society. 

All know, Mr. Chief Justice, the pure 
love of country which animated the 
deceased, and the zeal, as well as the 
talent, with which he explained and de- 
fended her institutions. His work on 
the Constitution of the United States is 
one of his most eminently successful 
labors. But all his writings, and all his 
judgments, all his opinions, and the 
whole influence of his character, public 
and private, leaned strongly and always 
to the support of sound principles, to 
the restraint of illegal power, and to the 
discouragement and rebuke of licentious 
and disorganizing sentiments. "Ad 
rempublicam firmandam, et ad stabi- 
liendas vires, et sanandura populum, 
omnis ejus pergebat institutio." 

But this is not the occasion. Sir, nor is 
it for me to consider and discuss at length 
the character and merits of Mr. Justice 
Story, as a writer or a judge. The per- 
formance of that duty, with which this 
Bar will no doubt charge itself, must be 
deferred to another opportunity, and 
will be committed to abler hands. But 
in the homage paid to his memory, one 
part may come with peculiar propriety 
and emphasis from ourselves. AVe have 
known him in private life. We have 
seen him descend from the bench, and 
mingle in our friendly circles. We have 
known his manner of life, from his youth 
up. We can bear witness to the strict 
uprightness and purity of his character, 
his simplicity and unostentatious habits, 
the ease and affability of his intercourse, 
his remarkable vivacity amidst severe 
labors, the cheerful and animating tones 
of his conversation, and his fast fidelity 
to friends. Some of us, also, can tes- 
tify to his large and liberal charities, 
not ostentatious or casual, but sys- 
tematic and silent, — dispensed almost 
without showing the hand, and falling 
and distilling comfort and happiness, 
like the dews of heaven. But we can 



testify, also, that in all his pursuits and 
employments, in all his recreations, in 
all his commerce with the world, and in 
his intercourse with the circle of his 
friends, the predominance of his judicial 
character was manifest. He never for- 
got the ermine which he wore. The 
judge, the judge, the useful and dis- 
tinguished judge, was the great picture 
which he kept constantly before his 
eyes, and to a resemblance of which all 
his efforts, all his thoughts, all his life, 
were devoted. We may go the world 
over, without finding a man who shall 
present a more striking realization of 
the beautiful conception of D'Agues- 
seau: "C'est en vain que I'on cherche a 
distinguer en lui la personne privee et 
la personne publique; un meme esprit 
les anime, iin meme objet les reunit; 
I'homme, le pere de famille, le citoyen, 
tout est en lui consacre h la gloire du 
magistrat." 

Mr. Chief Justice, one may live as a 
conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but 
he must die as a man. The bed of death 
brings every human being to his pure in- 
dividuality ; to the intense contempla- 
tion of that deepest and most solemn of 
all relations, the relation between the 
creature and his Creator. Here it is 
that fame and renow'n cannot assist 
us; that all external things must fail 
to aid us ; that even friends, affec- 
tion, and human love and devotedness, 
cannot succor us. This relation, the 
true foundation of all duty, a relation 
perceived and felt by conscience and 
confirmed by revelation, our illustrious 
friend, now deceased, always acknowl- 
edged. He reverenced the Scriptures of 
truth, honored the pure morality which 
they teach, and clung to the hopes of 
future life which they impart. He be- 
held enough in nature, in himself, and 
in all that can be known of things seen, 
to feel assured that there is a Supreme 
Power, without whose providence not a 
sparrow falleth to the ground. To this 
gracious being he trusted himself for 
time and for eternity ; and the last 
words of his lips' ever heard by mor- 
tal ears were a fervent supplication to 
his Maker to take him to himself. 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



AN ARGUilENT MADE IN THE SITREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 
THE 2-TH OF JANUARY, 1848, IN THE DORR REBELLION CASES. 



[The facts necessary to the understand- 
ing of these cases are sufficiently set forth 
in the commencement of Mr. Webster's 
argument. The event out of which the 
cases arose is known in popular language 
as the Dorr Rebellion. The first case (that 
of Martin Luther against Luther M. Borden 
and others) came up by writ of error from 
the Circuit Court of Rhode Island, in which 
the jury, under the rulings of the court 
(Mr. .lustice Story), found a verdict for the 
defendants ; the second case (that of Rachel 
Luther against the same defendants) came 
up by a certificate of a division of opinion. 
The allegations, evidence, and arguments 
were the same in both cases. 

The first case was argued by Mr. Hallet 
and ]Mr. Clifford (Attorney-General) for the 
plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Whipple and 
Mr. Webster for the defendants in error. 
Mr. Justice Catron, Mr. Justice Daniel, and 
Mr. Justice McKinlcy were absent from the 
court, in consequence of ill health. Chief 
Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the 
court, affirming the judgment of the court 
below in the first case, and dismissing the 
second for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Jus- 
tice Woodbury dissented, and delivered a 
very elaborate opinion in support of his 
view of the subject.] 

There is something novel and ex- 
traordinary in the ca.se now before the 
court. All will admit that it is not 
such a one as is usually presented for 
judicial consideration. 

It is well kno%\Ti, that in the years 
1841 and 1842 political agitation exi.sted 
in Rhode Island. Some of the citizens 
of that State undertook to form a new 
constitution of governtoent, beginning 



their proceedings towards that end by 
meetings of the people, held without 
authority of law, and conducting those 
proceedings through such forms as led 
them, in 1842, to say that they had es- 
tablished a new constitution and form 
of government, and placed iNIr. Thomas 
W. Dorr at its head. The previously 
existing, and then existing, government 
of Rhode Island treated these proceed- 
ings as nugatory, so far as they went to 
establish a new constitution ; and crim- 
inal, so far as they proposed to confer 
authority upon any persons to interfere 
with the acts of the existing govern- 
ment, or to exercise powers of legisla- 
tion, or administration of the laws. All 
will remember that the state of things 
approached, if not actual conflict be- 
tween men in arms, at least the " peril- 
ous edge of battle." Arms were re- 
sorted to, force was used, and greater 
force threatened. In June, 1842, this 
agitation subsided. The new govern- 
ment, as it called itself, disappeared from 
the scene of action. The former gov- 
errtment, the Charter government, as it 
was sometimes styled, resumed undis- 
puted control, went on in its ordinary 
course, and the peace of the State was 
restored. 

But the past had been too serious to 
be forgotten. The legislature of the 
State had, at an early stage of the 
troubles, found it necessary to pass 



536 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



special laws for the punisliment of the ' 
persons concerned in these proceedings. 
It defined the crime of treason, as well 
as smaller offences, and authorized the 
declaration of martial law. Governor 
King, under this authority, proclaimed 
the existence of treason and rebellion 
in the State, and declared the State 
under martial law. This having been 
done, and the ephemeral government of 
Mr. Dorr having disappeared, the grand 
juries of the State found indictments 
against several persons for having dis- 
turbed the peace of the State, and one 
against Dorr himself for treason. This 
indictment came on in the Supreme 
Court of Rhode Island in 1844, before 
a tribunal admitted on all hands to be 
the legal judicature of the State. • He 
was tried by a jmy of Rhode Island, 
above all objection, and after all chal- 
lenge. By that jury, under the instruc- 
tions of the court, he was convicted of 
treason, and sentenced to imprisonment 
for life. 

Now an action is brought in the 
courts of the United States, and be- 
fore your honors, by appeal, in which 
it is attempted to prove that the char- 
acters of this drama have been oddly 
and VTrongly cast ; that there has been 
a great mistake in the courts of Rhode 
Island. It is alleged, that Mr. Dorr, 
instead of being a traitor or an insur- 
rectionist, was the real governor of the 
State at the time; that the force used 
by him was exercised in defence of the 
constitution and laws, and not against 
them ; that he who opposed the consti- 
tuted authorities was not Mr. Dorr, but 
Governor King; and that it was he who 
should have been indicted, and tried, 
and sentenced. This is rather an im- 
portant mistake, to be sure, if it be a 
mistake. " Change places," cries poor 
Lear, " change places, and handy-dandy, 
which is the justice and which the 
thief? " So our learned opponents say, 
" Change places, and, handy-dandy, 
which is the governor and which the 
rebel?" The aspect of the case is, as 
I have said, novel. It may perhaps 
give vivacity and variety to judicial in- 
vestigations. It may relieve the drudg- 



ery of perusing briefs, demurrers, and 
pleas in bar, bills in equity and an- 
swers, and introduce topics which give 
sprightliness, freshness, and something 
of an uncommon public interest to pro- 
ceedings in courts of law. 

However difficult it may be, and I 
suppose it to be wholly impossible, that 
this court should take judicial cogni 
zance of the questions which the plain- 
tiff has presented to the court below, yet 
I do not think it a matter of regret that 
the cause has come hither. It is said, 
and truly said, that the case involves 
the consideration and discussion of what 
are the true principles of government in 
our American system of public liberty. 
This is very right. The case does in- 
volve these questions, and harm can 
never come from their discussion, espe- 
cially when such discussion is addressed 
to reason and not to passion ; when it is 
had before magistrates and lawyers, and 
not before excited masses out of doors. 
I agree entirely that the case does raise 
considerations, somewhat extensive, of 
the true character of our American sys- 
tem of popular liberty ; and although I 
am constrained to differ from the learned 
counsel who opened the cause for the 
plaintiff in error, on the principles and 
character of that American liberty, and 
upon the true characteristics of that 
American system on which changes of ■ 
the government and constitution, if they 
become necessary, are to be made, yet I 
agree with him that this case does pre- 
sent them for consideration. 

Now, there are certain principles of 
public liberty, which, though they do 
not exist in all forms of government, 
exist, nevertheless, to some extent, in 
different forms of government. The 
protection of life and property, the ha- 
beas corpus, trial by jury, the right of 
open trial, these are principles of public 
liberty existing in their best form in the 
republican institutions of this country, 
but, to the extent mentioned, existing 
also in the constitution of England. 
Our American liberty, allow me to say, 
therefore, has an ancestry, a pedigree, a 
history. Our ancestors brought to this 
continent all that was valuable, in their 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



537 



judgTnent, in the political institutions of 
p^ngland, and left behind them all that 
was without value, or that was objec- 
tionable. During the colonial period 
they were closely connected of course 
with the colonial system; but they were 
Englishmen, as well as colonists, and 
took an interest in whatever concerned 
the mother country, especially in all 
great questions of public liberty in that 
country. They accordingly took a deep 
concern in the Revolution of 1G88. The 
American colonists had suffered from 
the tyranny of James the Second. Their 
charters had been wrested from them by 
mockeries of law, and by the corruption 
of judges in the city of London; and in 
no part of England was there more grat- 
ification, or a more resolute feeling, 
when James abdicated and William came 
over, than in the American colonies. 
All know that IMassachusetts immedi- 
ately overthrew what had been done 
under the reign of James, and took pos- 
session of the colonial fort in the harbor 
of Boston in the name of the new king. 

When the United States separated 
from England, by the Declaration of 
1776, they departed from the political 
maxims and examples of the mother 
country, and entered upon a course more 
exclusively American. From that day 
down, our institutions and our history 
relate to ourselves. Through the period 
of the Declaration of Independence, of 
the Confederation, of the Convention, 
and the adoption of the Constitution, all 
our public acts are records out of which 
a knowledge of our system of American 
liberty is to be drawn. 

From the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, the governments of what had 
been colonies before were adapted to 
their new condition. They no longer 
owed allegiance to crowned heads. No 
tie bound them to England. The whole 
system became entirely popular, and all 
legislative and constitutional provisions 
had regard to this new, peculiar, Amer- 
ican character, which they had assumed. 
Where the form of government was al- 
ready well enough, they let it alone. 
AVhere reform was necessary, they re- 
formed it. What was valuable, they re- 



tained; what was essential, they added; 
and no more. Through the whole pro- 
ceeding, from 177G to the latest period, 
the whole course of American public 
acts, the whole progress of this Amer- 
ican system, was marked by a peculiar 
conservatism. The object was to do 
what was necessary, and no more ; and 
to do that with the utmost temperance 
and prudence. 

Now, without going into historical 
details at length, let me state what I 
understand the American principles to 
be, on which this system rests. 

First and chief, no man makes a ques- 
tion, that the people are the source of all 
political power. Government is insti- 
tuted for their good, and its members 
are their agents and servants. He who 
would argue against this must argue 
without an adversary. And who thinks 
there is any peculiar merit in asserting 
a doctrine like this, in the midst of 
twenty millions of people, when nine- 
teen millions nine hundred and ninety- 
nine thousand nine hundred and nine- 
ty-nine of them hold it, as well as 
himself '? There is no other doctrine 
of government here; and no man im- 
putes to another, and no man should 
claim for himself, any peculiar merit for 
asserting what everybody knows to be 
true, and nobody denies. Why, where 
else can we look but to the people for 
political power, in a popular govern- 
ment ? We have no hereditaiy execu- 
tive, no hereditary branch of the legis- 
lature, no inherited masses of property, 
no system of entails, no long trusts, no 
long family settlements, no primogeni- 
ture. Every estate in the country, from 
the richest to the poorest, is divided 
among sons and daughters alike. Alien- 
ation is made as easy as pjossible ; every- 
where the transmissibility of property is 
perfectly free. The whole system is ar- 
ranged so as to produce, as far as un- 
equal industry and enterprise render it 
possible, a universal equality among 
men; an equality of rights absolutely, 
and an equality of condition, so far as 
the different characters of individuals 
will allow such equality to be produced. 
He who considers that there may be, is, 



538 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



or ever has been, since the Declaration 
of Independence, any person who looks 
to any other source of power in this 
country than the people, so as to give 
peculiar merit to those who clamor loud- 
est in its assertion, must be out of his 
mind, even more than Don Quixote. 
His imagination was only perverted. 
He saw things not as they were, though 
what he saw were things. He saw 
windmills, and took them to be gifints, 
kniffhts on horseback. This was bad 
enough; but whoever says, or speaks as 
if he thought, that anybody looks to any 
other source of political power in this 
country than the people, must have a 
stronger and wilder imagination, for he 
sees nothing but the creations of his own 
fancy. He stares at phantoms. 

Well, then, let all admit, what none 
deny, that the only source of political 
power in this country is the people. Let 
us admit that they are sovereign, for 
they are so ; that is to say, the aggregate 
community, the collected will of the 
people, is sovereign. I confess that 1 
think Chief Justice Jay spoke rather 
paradoxically than philosophically, when 
he said that this country exhibited the 
extraordinary spectacle of many sover- 
eigns and no subjects. The people, he 
said, are all sovereigns; and the pecu- 
liarity of the case is that they have no 
subjects, except a few colored persons. 
This must be rather fanciful. The ag- 
gregate community is sovereign, but 
that is not the sovereignty which acts in 
the daily exercise of sovereign power. 
The people cannot act daily as the peo- 
ple. They must establish a government, 
and invest it with so much of the sover- 
eign power as the case requires; and 
this sovereign power being delegated 
and placed in the hands of the govern- 
ment, that government becomes what is 
popularly called the state. I like the 
old-fashioned way of stating things as 
they are ; and this is the true idea of a 
state. It is an organized government, 
representing the collected will of the peo- 
ple, as far as they see fit to invest that 
government with power. And in that 
respect it is true, that, though this gov- 
ernment possesses sovereign power, it 



does not possess all sovereign power; 
and so the State governments, though 
sovereign in some respects, are not so in 
all. Nor could it be shown that the 
powers of both, as delegated, embrace 
the whole range of what might be caUed 
sovereign power. We usually speak of 
the States as sovereign States. I do not 
object to this. But the Constitution 
never so styles them, nor does the Con- 
stitution speak of the government here 
as the general or the federal government. 
It calls this government the United 
States; and it calls the State govern- 
ments State governments. Still the fact 
is undeniably so ; legislation is a sover- 
eign power, and is exercised by the Unit- 
ed States government to a certain extent, 
and also by the States, according to the 
forms which they themselves have estab- 
lished, and subject to the provisions of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Well, then, having agreed that aU 
power is originally from the people, and 
that they can confer as much of it as 
they please, the next principle is, that, 
as the exercise of legislative power and 
the other powers of government immedi- 
ately by the people themselves is im- 
practicable, they must be exercised by 
REPRESENTATIVES of the pcoplc ; and 
what distinguishes American govern- 
ments as much as any thing else from 
any governments of ancient or of mod- 
ern times, is the marvellous felicity of 
their representative system. It has with 
us, allow me to say, a somewhat differ- 
ent origin from the representation of the 
commons in England, though that has 
been worked up to some resemblance of 
our own. The representative system in 
England had its origin, not in any sup- 
posed rights of the people themselves, 
but in the necessities and commands of 
the crown. At first, knights and bur- 
gesses were summoned, often against 
their will, to a Parliament called by the 
king. ]\Iany remonstrances were pre- 
sented against sending up these repre- 
sentatives; the charge of paying them 
was, not unfrequently, felt to be bur- 
densome by the people. But the king 
wished their counsel and advice, and 
perhaps the presence of a popular body, 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



539 



to enable him to make greater headway 
against the feudal barons in the aristo- 
cratic and hereditary branch of the 
legislature. In process of time these 
knights and burgesses assumed more 
and more a popular character, and be- 
came, by degrees, the guardians of pop- 
ular rights. The people through them 
obtained protection against the encroach- 
ments of the crown and the aristocracy, 
till in our day they are understood to be 
the representatives of the people, charged 
with the protection of their rights. With 
us it was always just so. Representa- 
tion has always been of this character. 
The power is with the people ; but they 
cannot exercise it in masses or per capita ; 
they can only exercise it by their repre- 
sentatives. The whole system with us 
has been popular from the beginning. 

Now, the basis of this representation 
is suffrage. The right to choose repre- 
sentatives is every man's part in the ex- 
ei'cise of sovereign power; to have a 
voice in it, if he has the proper qualifica- 
tions, is the portion of political power 
belono-inc: to every elector. That is the 
beginning. That is the mode in which 
power emanates from its source, and 
gets into the hands of conventions, legis- 
latures, courts of law, and the chair of 
the executive. It begins in suffrage. 
Suffrage is the delegation of the power 
of an individual to some agent. 

This being so, then follow two other 
great principles of the American system. 

1. The first is, that the right of suf- 
frage shall be guarded, protected, and 
secured against force and against fraud ; 
and, 

2. The second is, that its exercise 
shall be prescribed by previous law ; its 
qualifications shall be prescribed by pre- 
vious law ; the time and place of its ex- 
ercise shall be prescribed by previous law ; 
the manner of its exercise, under whose 
supervision (always sworn officers of the 
law), is to be prescribed. And then, 
again, the results are to be certified to 
the central power by some certain rule, 
by some known public ofiicers, in some 
clear and definite form, to the end that 
two things may be done: first, that 
every man entitled to vote may vote; 



second, that his vote may be sent for- 
ward and counted, and so he may exer- 
cise his part of sovereignty, in common 
with his fellow-citizens. 

In the exercise of political power 
through representatives we know noth- 
ing, we never have known any thing, 
but such an exercise as should take place 
through the prescribed forms of law. 
When we depart from that, we shall 
wander as widely from the American 
track as the pole is from the track of tlie 
sun. 

I have said that it is one principle of 
the American system, that the people 
limit their governments. National and 
State. They do so; but it is another 
principle, equally true and certain, and, 
according to my judgment of things, 
equally important, that the people often 
limit themselves. They set bounds to 
their own power. They have chosen to 
secure the institutions which they estab- 
lish against the sudden impulses of mere 
majorities. All om* institutions teem 
with instances of this. It was their 
great conservative principle, in consti- 
tuting forms of government, that they 
should secure what they had established 
against hasty changes by simple majori- 
ties. By the fifth article of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, Congress, 
two thirds of both houses concurring, 
may propose amendments of the Con- 
stitution ; or, on the application of the 
legislatures of two thirds of the States, 
may call a convention ; and amendments 
proposed in either of these forms must 
be ratified by the legislatures or con- 
ventions of three fourths of the States. 
The fifth article of the Constitution, if it 
was made a topic for those who framed 
the "people's constitution" of Rhode 
Island, could only have been a matter of 
reproach. It gives no countenance to 
any of their proceedings, or to any thing 
like them. On the contrary, it is one 
remarkable instance of the enactment 
and application of that great American 
principle, that the constitution of gov- 
ernment should be cautiously and pru- 
dently interfered with, and that changes 
should not ordinarily be begun and car- 
ried through by bare majorities. 



540 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



But the people limit themselves also 
in other ways. They limit themselves 
in the first exercise of their political 
rights. They limit themselves, by all 
their constitutions, in two important 
respects ; that is to say, in regai-d to the 
qualifications of electors, and in regard 
to the qualifications of the elected. In 
every State, and in all the States, the 
people have precluded themselves from 
voting for everybody they might wish 
to vote for ; they have limited their own 
right of choosing. They have said. We 
will elect no man who has not such and 
such qualifications. We will not vote 
ourselves, unless we have such and such 
qualifications. They have also limited 
themselves to certain prescribed forms 
for the conduct of elections. They must 
vote at a particular place, at a particu- 
lar time, and under particular condi- 
tions, or not at all. It is in these modes 
that we are to ascertain the will of the 
American people; and our Constitution 
and law\s know no other mode. We are 
not to take the will of the people from 
public meetings, nor from tumultuous 
assemblies, by which the timid are ter- 
rified, the prudent are alarmed, and by 
which society is disturbed. These are 
not American modes of signifying the 
will of the people, and they never were. 
If any thing in the country, not ascer- 
tained by a regular vote, by regular re- 
turns, and by regular representation, 
has been established, it is an exception, 
and not the rule ; it is an anomaly which, 
I believe, can scarcely be found. 

It is true that at the Revolution, when 
all government was immediately dis- 
solved, the people got together, and 
what did they do ? Did they exercise 
sovereign power? They began an in- 
ceptive organization, the object of which 
was to bring together representatives of 
the people, who should form a govern- 
ment. This was the mode of proceeding 
in those States where their legislatures 
were dissolved. It was much like that 
had in England upon the abdication of 
James the Second. He ran away, he 
abdicated. He threw the great seal into 
the Thames. I am not aware that, on 
the 4th of May, 1842, any great seal was 



thrown into Providence River! But 
James abdicated, and King William took 
the government; and how did he pro- 
ceed? Why, he at once requested all 
who had been members of the old Par- 
liament, of any regular Parliament in 
the time of Charles the Second, to as- 
semble. The Peers, being a standing 
body, could of course assemble ; and all 
they did w^as to recommend the calling 
of a convention, to be chosen by the 
same electors, and composed of the same 
numbers, as composed a Parliament. 
The convention assembled, and, as all 
know, was turned into a Parliament. 
This was a case of necessity, a revolu- 
tion. Don't we call it so? And why? 
Not merely because a new sovereign 
then ascended the throne of the Stuarts, 
but because there was a change in the 
organization of the government. The 
legal and established succession was 
broken. The convention did not assem- 
ble under any preceding law. There 
was a hiatus, a syncope, in the action of 
the body politic. This was revolution, 
and the Parliaments that assembled 
afterwards referred their legal origin to 
that revolution. 

Is it not obvious enough, that men 
cannot get together and count them- 
selves, and say they are so many hun- 
dreds and so many thousands, and judge 
of their own qualifications, and call 
themselves the people, and set up a gov- 
ernment? Why, another set of men, 
forty miles off, on the same day, with 
the same propriety, with as good quali- 
fications, and in as large numbers, may 
meet and set up another government; 
one may meet at New]3ort and another 
at Chepachet, and both may call them- 
selves the people. What is this but 
anarchy? What liberty is there here, 
but a tumultuary, tempestuous, violent, 
stormy liberty, a sort of South Ameri- 
can liberty, without power except in its 
spasms, a liberty supported by arms to- 
day, crushed by arms to-morrow? Is 
that our liberty? 

The regular action of popular power, 
on the other hand, places upon public 
liberty the most beautiful face that ever 
adorned that angel form. All is regular 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



541 



and harmonious in its features, and 
gentle in its operation. The stream of 
public authority, under American lib- 
erty, running in this channel, has the 
strengih of the ^lissouri, while its waters 
are as transparent as those of a crystal 
lake. It is powerful for good. It pro- 
duces no tumult, no violence, and no 
wrong ; — 

"Though deep, yet clear; though gentle, yet 
not dull; 
Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, 
full." 

Another American principle growing 
out of this, and just as important and 
well settled as is the truth that the 
people are the source of power, is, that, 
when in the course of events it becomes 
necessary to ascertain the will of the 
people on a new exigency, or a new 
state of things or of opinion, the legis- 
lative power provides for that ascertain- 
ment by an ordinary act of legislation. 
Has not that been our whole history? 
It would take me from now till the sun 
shall go down to advert to all the in- 
stances of it, and I shall only refer to 
the most prominent, and especially to 
the establishment of the Constitution 
under which you sit. The old Con- 
gress, upon the suggestion of the dele- 
gates w'ho assembled at Annapolis in 
May, 1786, recommended to the States 
that they should send delegates to a 
convention to be holden at Philadelphia 
to form a Constitution. No article of 
the old Confederation gave them power 
to do this; but they did it, and the 
States did appoint delegates, who as- 
sembled at Philadelphia, and formed 
the Constitution. It was communicated 
to the old Congress, and that body rec- 
ommended to the States to make pro- 
vision for calling the people together to 
act upon its adoption. Was not that 
exactly the case of passing a law to as- 
certain the w-ill of the people in a new 
exigency? And this method was adopt- 
ed without opposition, nobody suggest- 
ing that there could be any other mode 
of ascertaining the will of the people. 

My learned friend went through the 
constitutions of several of the States. 
It is enough to say, that, of the old 



thirteen States, the constitutions, with 
but one exception, contained no pro- 
vision for their own amendment. In 
New Hampshire there wa^ a provision 
for taking the sense of the people once 
in seven years. Yet there is hardly one 
that has not altered its constitution, and 
it has been done by conventions called 
by the legislature, as an ordinary exer- 
cise of legislative power. Now what 
State ever altered its constitution in any 
other mode? AVhat alteration has ever 
been brought in, put in, forced in, or 
got in anyhow, by resolutions of mass 
meetings, and then by applying force? 
In what State has an assembly, calling 
itself the people, convened without law, 
without authority, without qualifica- 
tions, without certain officers, with no 
oaths, securities, or sanctions of any 
kind, met and made a constitution, and 
called it the constitution of the State? 
There must be some authentic mode of 
ascertaining the will of the people, else 
all is anarchy. It resolves itself into 
the law of the strongest, or, what is the 
same thing, of the most numerous for 
the moment, and all constitutions and 
all legislative rights are prostrated and 
disregarded. 

But my learned adversary says, that, 
if we maintain that the people (for he 
speaks in the name and on behalf of the 
people, to which I do not object) cannot 
commence changes in their government 
but by some previous act of legislation, 
and if the legislature will not grant 
such an act, we do in fact follow the ex- 
ample of the Holy Alliance, "the doc- 
tors of Laybach," where the assembled 
sovereigns said that all changes of gov- 
ernment must proceed from sovereigns ; 
and it is said that we mark out the 
same rule for the people of Rhode 
Island. 

Now will any man, will my adversary 
here, on a moment's reflection, under- 
take to show the least resemblance on 
earth between what T have called the 
American doctrine, and the doctrine of 
the sovereigns at Laybach? What do 
I contend for? I say that the will of 
the people must prevail, when it is as- 
certained ; but there must be some legal 



542 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNlVrENT. 



and authentic mode of ascertaining that 
will; and then the people may make 
what government they please. Was 
that the doctrine of Laybach? Was 
not the doctrine there held this, — that 
the sovereigns should say what changes 
shall be made? Changes must proceed 
from them ; new constitutions and new 
laws emanate from them; and all the 
people had to do was to submit. That 
is what they maintained. All changes 
began with the sovereigns, and ended 
with the sovereigns. Pray, at about 
the time that the Congress of Laybach 
was in session, did the allied powers 
put it to the people of Italy to say what 
sort of change they would have? And 
at a more recent date, did they ask the 
citizens of Cracow what change they 
would have in their constitution? Or 
did they take away their constitution, 
laws, and liberties, by their own sover- 
eign act? All that is necessary here is, 
that the will of the people should be as- 
certained, by some regular rule of pro- 
ceeding, prescribed by previous law. 
But when ascertained, that will is as 
sovereign as the will of a despotic 
prince, of the Czar of Muscov-y, or the 
Emperor of Austria himself, though not 
quite so easily made known. A ukase 
or an edict signifies at once the will of 
a despotic prince ; but that will of the 
people, which is here as sovei-eign as 
the will of such a prince, is not so 
quickly ascertained or known; and 
thence arises the necessity for suffrage, 
which is the mode whereby each man's 
power is made to tell upon the constitu- 
tion of the government, and in the en- 
actment of laws. 

One of the most recent laws for taking 
the will of the people in any State is the 
law of 1845, of the State of New York. 
It begins by recommending to the peo- 
ple to assemble in their several election 
districts, and proceed to vote for dele- 
gates to a convention. If you will take 
the pains to read that act, it will be seen 
that New York regarded it as an ordi- 
nary exercise of legislative power. It 
applies all the penalties for fraudulent 
voting, as in other elections. It pun- 
ishes false oaths, as in other cases. Cer- 



tificates of the proper officers were to be 
held conclusive, and the will of the peo- 
ple was, in this respect, collected essen- 
tially in the same manner, supervised by 
the same officers, under the same guards 
against force and fraud, collusion and 
misrepresentation, as are usual in voting 
for State or United States officers. 

We see, therefore, from the commence- 
ment of the government under which we 
live, down to this late act of the State of 
New York, one uniform current of law, 
of precedent, and of practice, all going 
to establish the point that changes in 
government are to be brought about by 
the will of the people, assembled under 
such legislative provisions as may be 
necessary to ascertain that will, truly 
and authentically. 

In the next place, may it please your 
honors, it becomes very important to 
consider what bearing the Constitution 
and laws of the United States have upon 
this Rhode Island question. Of course 
the Constitution o£ the United States 
recognizes the existence of States. One 
branch of the legislature of the United 
States is composed of Senators, appointed 
by the States, in their State capacities. 
The Constitution of the United States ^ 
says that " the United States shall guar- 
antee to each State a republican form of 
government, and shall protect the sev- 
eral States against invasion ; and on ap- 
plication of. the legislature, or of the 
executive when the legislature cannot 
be convened, against domestic violence." 
Now, I cannot but think this a very 
stringent article, drawing after it the 
most important consequences, and all of 
them good consequences. The Consti- 
tution, in the section cited, speaks of 
States as having existing legislatures 
and existing executives; and it speaks 
of cases in which violence is practised or 
threatened against the State, in other 
words, " domestic violence " ; and it says 
the State shall be protected. It says, 
then, does it not? that the existing gov- 
ernment of a State shall be protected. 
My adversary says, if so, and if the leg- 
islatui-e would not call a convention, and 
1 Art. IV. § 4. 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



543 



if, when the people rise to make a con- 
stitution, tlie United States step in and 
prohibit them, why, the rights and priv- 
ileges of the people are checked, con- 
trolled. Undoubtedly. The Constitu- 
tion does not proceed on tlie ground of 
revolution ; it does not proceed on any 
right of revolution ; but it does go on the 
idea, that, within and under the Con- 
Btitution, no new form of government 
can be established in any State, without 
the authority of the existing govern- 
ment. 

Admitting the legitimacy of the argu- 
ment of my learned adversary, it would 
not authorize the inference he draws 
from it, because his own case falls within 
the same range. He has proved, he 
thinks, that there was an existing gov- 
ernment, a paper government, at least; 
a rightful government, as he alleges. 
Suppose it to be rightful, in his sense of 
right. Suppose three fourths of the peo- 
ple of Rhode Island to have been en- 
gaged in it, and ready to sustain it. 
What then? How is it to be done with- 
out the consent of the previous govern- 
ment ? How is the fact, that three 
fourths of the people are in favor of the 
new government, to be legally ascer- 
tained? And if the existing govern- 
ment deny that fact, and if that govern- 
ment hold on, and will not surrender till 
displaced by force, and if it is threatened 
by force, then the case of the Constitu- 
tion arises, and the United States must 
aid tiie government that is in, because 
an attempt to displace a government by 
force is " domestic violence." It is the 
exigency provided for by the Constitu- 
tion. If the existing government main- 
tain its post, though three fourths of the 
State have adopted the new constitu- 
tion, is it not evident enough that the 
exigency arises in which the constitu- 
tional power here must go to the aid of 
the existing government? Look at the 
law of 28th February, 1795.^ Its words 
are, " And in case of an insurrection in 
any State, against the government thereof, 
it shall be lawful for the President of 
the United States, on application of the 
legislature of such State, or of the execu- 
1 Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 424. 



tive (when the legislature cannot be con- 
vened), to call forth such number of the 
militia of any other State or States, as 
may be applied for, as he may judge 
sufficient to suppress such insurrection." 
Insurrection against the existing govern- 
ment is, then, the thing to be suppressed. 

But the law and the Constitution, the 
whole system of American institutions, 
do not contemplate a case in which a re- 
sort will be necessary to proceedings 
aliunde, or outside of the law and the 
Constitution, for the purpose of amend- 
ing the frame of government. They go 
on the idea that the States are all repub- 
lican, that they are all representative in 
their forms, and that these popular gov- 
ernments in each State, the animally 
created creatures of the people, will give 
all proper facilities and necessary aids 
to bring about changes which the people 
may judge necessary in their constitu- 
tions. They take that ground and act 
on no other supposition. They assume 
that the popular will in all particulars 
will be accomplished. And history has 
proved that the presumption is well 
founded. 

This, may it please your honors, is 
the view I take of what I have called 
the American system. These are the 
methods of bringing about changes in 
government. 

Xow, it is proper to look into this 
record, and see what the questions are 
that are presented by it, and consider, — 

1. Whether the case is one for judicial 
investigation at all ; that is, whether this 
court can try the matters which the 
plaintiff has offered to prove in the court 
below; and, 

2. In the second place, whether many 
things which he did offer to prove, if 
they could have been and had been 
proved, were not acts of criminality, 
and therefore no justification; and, 

3. Whether all that was offered to be 
proved would show that, in point of fact, 
there had been established and put in 
operation any new constitution, dis- 
placing the old charter government of 
llliode Island. 

The declaration is in trespass. The 
writ was issued on the 8th of October, 



544 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



1842, in which Martin Luther complains 
that Luther M. Borden and others broke 
into his house in Warren, Rhode Island, 
on the 29th of June, 1842, and disturbed 
his family and committed other illegal 
acts. 

The defendant answers, that large 
numbers of men were in arms, in Rhode 
Island, for the purpose of overthrowing 
the government of the State, and making 
war upon it; and that, for the preserva- 
tion of the government and people, mar- 
tial law had been proclaimed by the 
Governor, under an act of the legisla- 
ture, on the 25th of June, 1842. The 
plea goes on to aver, that the plaintiff 
was aiding and abetting this attempt to 
overthrow the government, and that the 
defendant was under the military au- 
thority of John T. Child, and was or- 
dered by him to arrest the iJaintiff ; for 
which purpose he applied at the door of 
his house, and being refused entrance 
he forced the door. 

The action is thus for an alleged tres- 
pass, and the plea is justification under 
the law of Rhode Island. The plea and 
replications are as usual in such cases in 
point of form. The plea was filed at 
the November term of 1842, and the 
case was tried at the November term of 

1843, in the Circuit Couit in Rhode 
Island. In order to make out a defence, 
the defendant offered the charter of 
Rhode Island, the participation of the 
State in the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, its uniting with the Confederation 
in 1778, its admission into the Union in 
1790, its continuance in the Union and 
its recognition as a State down to May, 
1843, when the constitution now in force 
was adopted. Here let it be particularly 
remarked, that Congress admitted Rhode 
Island into the Constitution under this 
identical old charter government, there- 
by giving sanction to it as a republican 
form of government. The defendant 
then refers to all the laws and proceed- 
ings of the Assembly, till the adoption 
of the present constitution of Rhode 
Island. To repel the case of the de- 
fendant, the plaintiff read the proceed- 
ings of the old legislature, and docu- 
ments to show that the idea of changing 



the government had been entertained as 
long ago as 1790. He read also certain 
resolutions of the Assembly in 1841, 
memorials praying changes in the con- 
stitution, and other documents to the 
same effect. He next offered to prove 
that suffrage associations were formed 
throughout the State in 1840 and 1841, 
and that steps were taken by them for 
holding public meetings; and to show 
the proceedings had at those meetings. 
In the next place, he offered to prove 
that a mass convention was held at New- 
port, attended by over four thousand 
persons, and another at Providence, at , 
which over six thousand attended, at 
which resolutions were passed in favor 
of the change. Then he offered to prove 
the election of delegates; the meeting 
of the convention in October, 1841, and 
the draughting of the Dorr constitution; 
the reassembling in 1841, the comple- 
tion of the draught, its submission to 
the people, their voting upon it, its 
adoption, and the proclamation on the 
13th of January, 1842, that the consti- 
tution so adopted was the law of the 
land. 

That is the substance of what was 
averred as to the formation of the Dorr 
constitution. The plaintiff next offered 
to prove that the constitution was 
adopted by a large majority of the 
qualified voters of the State; that offi- 
cers were elected under it in April, 1842 ; 
that this new government assembled on 
the 3d of May ; and he offered a copy of 
its proceedings. He sets forth that the 
court refused to admit testimony upon 
these subjects, and to these points; and 
ruled that the old government and laws 
of the State were in full force and power, 
and then existing, when the alleged 
trespass was made, and that they justi- 
fied the acts of the defendants, according 
to their plea. 

I will give a few references to other 
proceedings of this new government. 
The new constitution was proclaimed on 
the 13th of January, 1842, by some of 
the officers of the convention. On the 
13th of April, officers were appointed 
under it, and Mr. Dorr was chosen gov- 
ernor. On Tuesday, the 3d of May, the 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



545 



new legislature met, was organized, and 
then, it is insisted, the new constitution 
became the hiw of the hind. The le<ris- 
hiture sat through that whole day, 
morning and evening; adjourned; met 
the next day, and sat through all tliat 
day, morning and evening, and did a 
great deal of paper business. It went 
through the forms of choosing a Supreme 
Court, and transacting other business of 
a similar kind, and on the evening of 
the 4th of May it adjourned, to meet 
again on the first Monday of July, in 
Providence, 

"And word spake never .jiore." 

It never reassembled. This govern- 
ment, then, whatever it was, came into 
existence on the third day of May, and 
went out of existence on the fourth day 
of May. 

I will now give some references con- 
cerning the Tiew constitution authorized 
by the government, the old government, 
and which is now the constitution of 
Rhode Island. It was framed in No- 
vember, 18 12. It was voted upon by 
the people on the 21st, 22d, and 23d 
days of November, was then by them 
accepted, and became by its own pro- 
visions the constitution of Rhode Island 
on the first Tuesday of May, 1843. 

Now, what, in the mean time, had 
become of Mr. Dorr's government? 
According to the principle of its friends, 
they are forced to admit that it was 
superseded by the new, that is to say, 
the present government, because the 
people accepted the new government. 
But there was no new government till 
May, 1843. According to them, then, 
there was an interregnum of a whole 
year. If Mr. Dorr had had a govern- 
ment, what became of it? If it ever 
came in, what put it out of existence? 
AVhy did it not meet on the day to which 
it had adjourned? It was not displaced 
by the new constitution, because that 
had not been agreed upon in convention 
till November. It was not adopted by 
the people till the last of November, 
and it did not go into operation till May. 
What then had become of Mr. Dorr's 
government? 



I think it is important to note that 
the new constitution, established ac- 
cording to the prescribed forms, came 
thus into operation in IMay, 1843, and 
was admitted by all to bo the constitu- 
tion of the State. What then hajipened 
in the State of Rhode Island? I do not 
mean to go through all the trials that 
were had after this ideal government of 
Mr. Dorr ceased to exist; but I will ask 
attention to the report of the trial of 
Dorr for treason, which took place in 
1844, before all the judges of the Su- 
pi-enie Court of the State. lie was 
indicted in August, 1842, and tlie trial 
came on in March, 1844. The indict- 
ment was found wiiile the charter gov- 
ernment was in force, and the trial was 
had under the new constitution. He 
was found guilty of treason. 

And I turn to the report of the trial 
now, to call attention to the language 
of the court in its charge, as deliv- 
ered by Chief Justice Durfee. I pre- 
sent the following extract from that 
charge : — 

" It may be, Gentlemen, tliat he really 
believed himself to be the governor of tlie 
State, and that he acted throughout under 
this delusion. However this may go to 
extenuate the offence, it does not take from 
it its legal guilt. It is no defence to an 
indictment for the viohition of any law for 
the defendant to come into court and say, 
' I thought that I was but exercising a 
constitutional right, and I claim an acquit- 
tal on the ground of mistake.' Were it so, 
there would be an end to all law and all 
government. Courts and juries would have 
nothing to do but to sit in judgment upon 
indictments, in order to acquit or excuse. 
The accused has only to prove that he has 
been systematic in committing crime, and 
that he thought that lie had a right to com- 
mit it ; and, according to this doctrine, you 
must acquit. The main ground upon which 
the prisoner sought for a justification was, 
that a constitution had been adopted hy a 
majority of the male adult population of 
this State, voting in their jjriniary or nat- 
ural capacity or condition, and that he was 
subsequently elected, and did the acts 
charged, as governor under it. He offered 
the votes theniselvt's to prove its adoption, 
which were also to be followed by proof of 
his election. This evidence we have ruled 



35 



646 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



out. Courts and juries, Gentlemen, do not 
count votes to determine whether a consti- 
tution lias been adopted or a governor 
elected, or not. Courts take notice, with- 
out proof offered from the bar, what the 
constitution is or was, and who is or was 
the governor of their own State. It belongs 
to the legislature to exercise this high duty. 
It is the legislature which, in the exercise 
of its delegated sovereignty, counts the 
votes and declares whether a constitution 
be adopted or a governor elected, or not; 
and we cannot revise and reverse their acts 
in this particular, without usurping their 
power. Were the votes on the adoption of 
our present constitution now offered here 
to prove that it was or was not adopted ; 
or those given for the governor under it, to 
prove that he was or was not elected ; we 
could not receive the evidence ourselves, 
we could not permit it to pass to the jury. 
And why not? Because, if we did so, we 
should cease to be a mere judicial, and 
become a political tribunal, with the whole 
sovereignty in our hands. Neither the peo- 
ple nor the legislature would be sovereign. 
We should be sovereign, or you would be 
sovereign ; and we should deal out to par- 
ties litigant, here at our bar, sovereignty to 
this or that, according to rules or laws of 
our own making, and heretofore unknown 
in courts. 

" In what condition would this country 
be, if appeals could be thus taken to courts 
and juries'? This jury might decide one 
way, and that another, and the sovereignty 
might be found here to-day, and there to- 
morrow. Sovereignty is above courts or 
juries, and the creature cannot sit in judg- 
ment upon its creator. Were this instru- 
ment offered as the constitution of a foreign 
state, we might, perhaps, under some cir- 
cumstances, require proof of its existence ; 
but, even in that case, the fact would not 
be ascertained by counting the votes given 
at its adoption, but by tlie certificate of the 
secretary of state, under the broad seal of 
the state. This instrument is not offered 
as a foreign constitution, and this court is 
bound to know what the constitution of the 
government is under which it acts, without 
any j)roof even of that high character. We 
know nothing of the existence of the so- 
called ' people's constitution ' as law, and 
there is no proof before you of its adoption, 
and of the election of the prisoner as gov- 
ernor under it ; and you can return a 
verdict only on the evidence that has passed 
to you." 



Having t]iuf5, may it please your lion^ 
ors, attempted to state the questions as 
they arise, and having referred to what 
has taken place in Rhode Island, I .shall 
present what further I have to say in 
three propositions : — 

1st. I say, first that the matters 
offered to be proved by the plaintiff in 
the court below are not of judicial cog- 
nizance; and proof of tliem, therefore, 
was properly rejected by the court. 

2d. If all these matters could be, and 
had been, legally proved, they would 
have constituted no defence, because 
they show nothing but an illegal attempt 
to overthrow the government of Rhode 
Island. 

3d. No proof was offered by the plain- 
tiff to show that, in fact, another gov- 
ernment had gone into operation, by 
which the Charter government had 
become displaced. 

And first, these matters are not of 
judicial cognizance. Does this need 
arguing? Are the various matters of 
fact alleged, the meetings, the appoint- 
ment of committees, the qualifications 
of voters, — is there any one of all these 
matters of which a court of law can take 
cognizance in a case in which it is to 
decide on sovereignty? Are fundamen- 
tal changes in the frame of a govern- 
ment to be thus proved? The thing to 
be proved is a change of the sovereign 
power. Two legislatures existed at the 
same time, both claiming power to pass 
laws. Both could not have a legal ex- 
istence. What, then, is the attempt of 
our adversaries? To put down one 
sovereign government, and to put an- 
other up, by facts and proceedings in 
regard to elections out of doors, unau- 
thorized by any law whatever. Regular 
proceedings for a change of government 
may in some cases, perhaps, be taken 
notice of by a court ; but this court must 
look elsewhere than out of doors, and to 
public meetings, irregular and unau- 
tliorized, for the decision of such a 
question as this. It naturally looks to 
that authority under which it sits here, 
to the provisions of the Constitution 
which have created this tribunal, and to 
the laws by which its proceedings are 



THE RHODE ISLAND G0\T:RNMENT. 



547 



regulated. It must look to the acts of 
the government of the United States, in 
its various branches. 

This Rhode Island disturbance, as 
everybody knows, was brought to the 
knowledge of the President of the United 
States ^ by the public authorities of Rhode 
Island; and how did he treat it? The 
United States have guaranteed to each 
State a republican form of government. 
And a law of Congress has directed the 
President, in a constitutional case re- 
quiring the adoption of such a proceed- 
ing, to call out the militia to put down 
domestic violence, and suppress insur- 
rection. Well, then, application was 
made to the President of the United 
States, to the executive power of the 
United States. For, according to our 
system, it devolves upon the executive 
to determine, in the first instance, what 
are and what are not governments. The 
President recognizes governments, for- 
eign governments, as they appear from 
time to time in the occurrences of this 
cliangeful world. And the Constitution 
and the laws, if an insurrection exists 
against the government of any State, 
rendering it necessary to appear with 
an armed force, make it his duty to call 
out the militia and suppress it. 

Two things may here be properly con- 
sidered. The first is, that the Constitu- 
tion declares that the United States sliall 
protect every State against domestic vio- 
lence; and the law of 1795, making pro- 
vision for carn'ing this constitutional 
duty into effect in all proper cases, de- 
clares, that, " in case of an insurrection 
in any State against the government 
thereof, it shall be lawful for the Presi- 
dent of the United States to call out the 
militia of other States to suppress such 
insurrection." These constitutional and 
legal provisions make it the indispensa- 
ble duty of the President to decide, in 
cases of commotion, what is the rightful 
government of the State. lie cannot 
avoid such decision. And in this case 
he decided, of course, that the existing 
government, the charter government, 
was the rightful government. He could 
not possibly have decided otherwise. 
1 Mr. Tvler. 



In the next place, if events had made 
it necessary to call out the militia, and 
the officers and .soldiers of such militia, 
in protecting the existing government, 
had done precisely what the defendants 
in this case did, could an action have 
been maintained against them? No 
one would assert so absurd a proposi- 
tion. 

In reply to the requisition of the Gov- 
ernor, the President stated that he did 
not think it was yet time for the appli- 
cation of force ; but he wrote a letter to 
the Secretary of War, in which he di- 
rected him to confer with the Governor 
of Rhode Island ; and, whenever it should 
appear to them to be necessary, to call 
out from Massachusetts and Connecticut 
a militia force sufficient to terminate at 
once this insurrection, by the authority 
of the government of the United States. 
We are at no loss, therefore, to know 
how the executive government of the 
United States treated this insurrection. 
It was regarded as fit to he suppressed. 
That is manifest from the President's 
letters to the Secretary of War and to 
Governor King. 

Now, the eye of this court must be 
directed to the proceedings of the gen- 
eral government, which had its attention 
called to the subject, and which did insti- 
tute proceedings respecting it. And the 
court will learn from the proceedings of 
the executive branch of the government, 
and of the two chambers above us, how 
the disturbances in Rhode Island were 
regarded ; whether they were looked upon 
as the establishment of any government, 
or as a mere pure, unauthorized, un- 
qualified insurrection against the author- 
ity of the existing government of the 
State. 

I say, therefore, that, upon that 
ground, these facts are not facts which 
this court can inquire into, or which the 
court below could try ; because they are 
facts going to prove (if they prove any 
thing) the establishment of a new sov- 
ereignty; and that is a question to be 
settled elsewhere and otherwise. From 
the very nature of the case, it is not a 
question to be decided by judicial in- 
quiry. Take, for example, one of the 



1 



548 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



points which it involves. My adversary 
offered to prove that the constitution 
was adopted by a majority of the people 
of Rhode Island; by a large majority, as 
he alleges. What does this offer call on 
your honors to do? Why, to ascertain, 
by proof, what is the number of citizens 
of Rhode Island, and how many attended 
the meetings at which the delegates to 
the convention were elected; and then 
you have to add them all up, and prove 
by testimony the qualifications of every 
one of thetn to be an elector. It is 
enough to -state such a proposition to 
show its absurdity. As none such ever 
was sustained in a court of law, so none 
can be or ought to be sustained. Ob- 
serve that minutes of proceedings can 
be no proof, for they were made by no 
authentic persons; registers were kept 
by no warranted officers; chairmen and 
moderators were chosen without author- 
ity. In short, there are no official rec- 
ords; there is no testimony in the case 
but parol. Chief Justice Durfee has 
stated this so plainly, that I need not 
dwell upon it. 

But, again, I say you cannot look into 
the facts attempted to be proved, be- 
cause of the certainty of the continuance 
of the old government till the new and 
legal constitution went into effect on the 
3d of May, 1843. To prove that there 
was another constitution of two days' 
duration would be ridicnlons. And I 
say that the decision of Rhode Island 
herself, by her legislature, by her execu- 
tive, by the adjudication of her highest 
court of law, on the trial of Dorr, has 
shut up the whole case. Do you propose, 
— I will not put it in that form, — but 
would it be proper for this court to 
reverse that adjudication? That de- 
clares that the judges of Rhode Island 
know nothing of the " People's Consti- 
tution." Is it possible, then, for this 
court, or for the court below, to know 
any thing of it ? 

It appears to me that, if there were 
nothing else in the case, the proceedings 
of Rhode Island herself must close every- 
body's mouth, in the court and out of 
it. Rhode Island is competent to decide 
the question herself, and everybody else 



ought to be bound by her decision. 
And she has decided it. ' 

And it is but a branch of this to say, 
according to my second proposition, — 

2. That if every thing offered had been 
proved, if in the nature of the case these 
facts and proceedings could have been 
received as proof, the court could not 
have listened to them, because every one 
of thent is regarded by the State in 
which they took place as a criminal act. 
Who can derive any authority from acts 
declared to be criminal? The very pro- 
ceedings which are now set np here 
show that this pretended constitution 
was founded upon acts which the legis- 
lature of the State had provided punish- 
ment for, and which the courts of the 
State have punished. All, therefore, 
which the plaintiff has attempted to 
prove, are acts which he was not allowed 
to prove, because they were criminal in 
themselves, and have been so treated 
and punished, so far as the State gov- 
ernment, in its discretion, has thought 
proper to punish them. 

3. Thirdly, and lastly, I say that there 
is no evidence offered, nor has any dis- 
tinct allegation been made, that there 
was an actual government established 
and put in operation to displace the 
Charter government, even for a single 
day. That is evident enough. You 
find the whole embraced in those two 
days, the 3d and 4tli of May. The 
French revolution was thouglit to be 
somewhat rapid. That took three days. 
But this work was accomplished in two. 
It is all there, and what is it? Its birth, 
its whole life, and its death were accom- 
plished in forty-eight hours. What does 
it appear that the members of this gov- 
ernment did? Why, they voted that A 
should be treasurer, and C, secretary, 
and Mr. Dorr, governor; and chose oifi- 
cers of the Supreme Court. But did 
ever any man under that authority at- 
tempt to exercise a particle of official 
power? Did any man ever bring a suit? 
Did ever an officer make an arrest? Did 
any act proceed from any member of 
this government, or from any agent of 
it, to touch a citizen of Rhode Island in 
his person, his safety, or his property. 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



549 



so as to make the party answerable upon 
an indictment or in a civil suit? Never. 
It never performed one sinijle act of 
government. It never did a tiling in the 
world! All was patriotism, and all was 
paper; and with patriotism and with 
paper it went out on the 4th of May, 
admitting itself to be, as all must regard 
it, a contemptible sham.' 

I have now done with the principles 
involved in this case, and the questions 
presented on this recoi'd. 

In regard to the other case, I have but 
few words to say. And, first, I think 
it is to be i-egretted that the court below 
sent up such a list of points on which it 
was divided. I shall not go through 
them, and shall leave it to the court to 
say whether, after they shall have dis- 
posed of the first cause, there is any 
thing left. I shall only draw attention 
to the subject of martial law; and in 
respect to that, instead of going back to 
martial law as it existed in England at 
the time the charter of Rhode Island 
was granted, I shall merely observe that 
martial law confers power of arrest, of 
sununary trial, and prompt execution; 
and that when it has been proclaimed, 
the land becomes a camp, and the law 
of the camp is the law of the land. Mr. 
Justice Story defines martial law to be 
the law of war, a resort to military au- 
thority in cases where the civil law is 
not sufficient; and it confers summary 
power, not to be used arbitrarily or for 
the gratification of personal feelings of 
hatred or revenge, but for the preserva- 
tion of order and of the public peace. 
The officer clothed with it is to judge of 
the degree of force that the nece.ssity of 
the case may demand ; and there is no 
limit to this, except such as is to be 
found in the nature and character of the 
exigency. 

I now take leave of this whole case. 
That it is an interesting incident in the 
histoiy of our institutions, I freely ad- 
mit. That it has come hither is a sub- 
ject of no regret to me. I might have 
said, that 1 see nothing to complain of 
in tlie proceedings of what is called the 
Charter government of Rhode Island, 



except that it might perhaps have dis- 
creetly taken measures at an earlier 
period for revising the constitution. If 
in that delay it erred, it was the error 
into which prudent and cautious men 
woidd fall. As to the enormity of free- 
hold suffrage, how long is it since Vir- 
ginia, the parent of States, gave up her 
freehold suffrage? IIow long is it since 
nobody voted for governor in New York 
without a freehold qualification? There 
are now States in which no man can 
vote for members of the upper branch 
of the legislature who does jiot own fifty 
acres of land. Every State requires 
more or less of a property qualification 
in its othcers and electors; and it is for 
discreet legislation, or constitutional pro- 
visions, to determine what its amount 
shall be. Even the Dorr constitution 
had a property qualification. Accord- 
ing to its provisions, for officers of the 
State, to be sure, anybody could vote; 
but its authors remembered that taxa- 
tion and representation go together, 
and therefore they declared that no 
man, in any towMi, should vote to lay a 
tax for town purposes who had not the 
means to pay his portion. It said to 
him, You cannot vote in the town of 
Providence to levy a tax for repairing 
the streets of Providence ; but you may 
vote for governor, and for thirteen rep- 
resentatives from the town of Provi- 
dence, and send them to the legislature, 
and there they may tax the people of 
Rhode Island at their sovereign will 
and pleasure. 

I believe that no harm can come of 
the Rhode Island agitation in 1841, but 
rather good. It will purify the political 
atmosphere from some of its noxious 
mists, and I hope it will clear men's 
minds from unfounded notions and dan- 
gerous delusions. I hope it will bring 
them to look at the regularity, the or- 
der, with which we carry on what, if the 
word were not .so much abused, I would 
call our glorious representative system of 
popular government. Its principles will 
.stand the test of this crisis, as they have 
stood the test and torture of others. They 
are exposed always, and they always 
will be exposed, to dangers. There are 



550 



THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 



dangers from the extremes of too much 
and of too little popular liberty; from 
monarchy, or military despotism, on 
one side, and from licentiousness and 
anarchy on the other. This always 
will be the case. The classical navi- 
gator had been told that he must pass a 
narrow and dangerous strait: 

"Dextrum Scylla latus, laevum implacafa Cha- 
rybdis, 
Obsidet." 

Forewarned he was alive to his danger, 
and knew, by signs not doubtful, where 
he was, when he approached its scene : 

" Et gemitum ingentem pelagi, piilsataque saxa, 
Audimus longe, fractasque ad litora voces ; 
Exsultantque vada, atque aestu miscentur 

arenas. 
.... Nimirum haec ilia Charybdis ! " 

The long-seeing sagacity of our 
fathers enables us to know equally well 
where we are, when we hear the voices 
of tumultuary assemblies, and see the 
turbulence created by numbers meeting 
and acting without the restraints of 
law ; and has most wisely provided con- 
stitutional means of escape and security. 
When the established authority of gov- 
ernment is openly contemned ; when no 



deference is paid to the regular and au- 
thentic declarations of the public will; 
when assembled masses put themselves 
above the law, and, calling themselves 
the people, attempt by force to seize on 
the government; when the social and 
political order of the state is thus threat- 
ened with overthrow, and the spray of 
the waves of violent popular commotion 
lashes the stars, — our political pilots 
may well cry out: 

" Nimirum htec ilia Charybdis! " 
The prudence of the countiy, the 
sober wisdom of the people, has thus 
far enabled us to carry this Constitu- 
tion, and all our constitutions, through 
the perils which have surrounded them, 
without running upon the rocks on one 
side, or being swallowed up in the eddy- 
ing whirlpools of the other. And I fer- 
vently hope that this signal happiness 
and good fortune will continue, and 
that our children after us will ex- 
ercise a similar prudence, and wis- 
dom, and justice; and that, under the 
Divine blessing, our system of free 
government may continue to go on, 
with equal prosperity, to the end of 
time. 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
23d of march, 1848, ON THE BILL FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- 
TIVES FOR RAISING A LOAN OF SIXTEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 



[On the 2d of February, 1848, the treaty 
called a " treaty of peace, friendship, limits, 
and settlement, between the United States 
of America and the Mexican liepublic," 
was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo. This 
treaty, with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, was ratified by the President of the 
United States on the 16th of March. In 
the mean time, a bill, introduced into the 
House of Representatives on the 18th of 
February, to authorize a loan of sixteen 
millions of dollars for the purpose of carry- 
ing on the war, passed through that house, 
and was considered in the Senate. Other 
war measures were considered and adopted 
by the two houses, after the signature and 
ratification of the treaty. On the 2;M of 
March, the Sixteen Million Loan Bill being 
imder consideration, Mr. Webster spoke as 
follows.] 

Mr. President, — On Friday a bill 
passed the Senate for raising ten regi- 
ments of new troops for the furtlier 
prosecution of the war against Mexico; 
and we have been informed that that 
measure is shortly to be followed, in this 
branch of the legislature, by a bill to 
raise twenty regiments of volunteers for 
the same service. I was desirous of 
expressing my opinions against the ob- 
ject of these bills, against the supi)osed 
necessity which leads to their enact- 
ment, and against the general policy 
which they are apparently designed to 
{)romote. Circumstances personal to 
myself, but beyond my control, com- 
pelled me to forego, on that day, the 



execution of that design. The bill now 
before the Senate is a measure for rais- 
ing money to meet the exigencies of the 
government, and to provide the means, 
as well as for other things, for the pay 
and support of these thirty regiments. 

Sir, the scenes through which we 
have passed, and are passing, here, are 
various. For a fortnight the world 
supposes we have been occupied with 
the ratification of a treaty of peace, and 
that within these walls, "the world 
shut out," notes of peace, and hopes of 
peace, nay, strong assurances of peace, 
and indications of peace, have been 
uttered to console and to cheer us. Sir, 
it has been over and over stated, and is 
public, that we have ratified a treaty, 
of course a treaty of peace, and, as the 
country has been led to suppose, not 
of an uncertain, empty, and delusive 
peace, but of real and substantial, a 
gratifying and an enduring peace, a 
peace which would stanch the wounds 
of war, prevent the further flow of 
human blood, cut off these enormous 
expenses, and return our friends, and 
our brothers, and our children, if they 
be yet living, from the land of slaugh- 
ter, and the land of still more dismal 
destruction by climate, to our firesides 
and our arms. 

Hardly have these halcyon notes 
ceased upon our ears, when, in resumed 



552 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



public session, we are summoned to 
fresh warlike operations; to create a 
new army of thirty thousand men for 
the further prosecution of the war; to 
carry the war, in the language of the 
President, still more dreadfully into the 
vital jiarts of the enemy, and to press 
home, by fire and sword, the claims we 
make, and the grounds which we insist 
iipon, against our fallen, prostrate, I 
had almost said, our ignoble enemy. 
If we may judge from the opening 
speech of the honorable Senator from 
Michigan, and from other speeches that 
have been made upon this floor, there 
lias been no time, from the commence- 
ment of the war, when it has been more 
urgently pressed upon us, not only to 
maintam, but to increase, our military 
means; not only to continue the war, 
but to i^ress it still more vigorously 
than at present. 

Pray, what does all this mean ? Is it, 
I ask, confessed, then, — is it confessed 
that we are no nearer a peace than we 
were when we snatched up this bit of 
paper called, or miscalled, a treaty, and 
ratified it ? Have we yet to fight it out 
to the utmost, as if nothing pacific had 
intervened ? 

I wish. Sir, to treat the proceedings 
of this and of every department of the 
government with the utmost respect. 
The Constitution of this government, 
and the exercise of its just powers in 
the administration of the laws under it, 
have been the cherished object of all 
ray unimportant life. But, if the sub- 
ject were not one too deeply interesting, 
I should say our proceedings here may 
well enough cause a smile. In the 
ordinary transaction of the foreign re- 
lations of this and of all other govern- 
ments, the course has been to negotiate 
first, and to ratify afterwards. This 
seems to be the natural order of con- 
ducting intercourse between foreign 
states. AVe have chosen to reverse this 
order. We ratify first, and negotiate 
afterwards. We set up a treaty, such 
as we find it and choose to make it, and 
then send two ministers plenipotentiary 
to negotiate thereupon in the capital of 
the enemy. One would think, Sir, the 



ordinary course of proceeding much the 
juster; that to negotiate, to hold inter- 
course, and come to some arrangement, 
by authorized agents, and then to sub- 
mit that arrangement to the sovereign 
authority to which these agents are 
responsible, would be always the most 
desirable method of proceeding. It 
strikes me that the course we have 
adopted is strange, is even grotestjue. 
So far as I know, it is unprecedented in 
the history of diplomatic intercourse. 
Learned gentlemen on the floor of the 
Senate, interested to defend and pro- 
tect this course, may, in their extensive 
reading, have found examples of it. 
I know of none. 

Sir, we are in possession, by military 
power, of New Mexico and California, 
countries belonging hitherto to the ^ 
United States of Mexico. We are in- 
formed by the President that it is his 
purpose to retain them, to consider 
them as territory fit to be attached to 
these United States of America; and 
our military operations and designs now 
before the Senate are to enforce this 
claim of the executive of the United 
States. We are to compel Mexico to 
agree that the part of her dominions 
called New Mexico, and that called Cali- 
fornia, shall be ceded to us. We are in 
possession, as is said, and she shall yield 
her title to us. This is the precise ob- 
ject of this new army of thirty thousand 
men. Sir, it is the identical object, in 
my judgment, for which the war was 
originally commenced, for which it has 
hitherto been prosecuted, and in further- 
ance of which this treaty is to be used 
but as one means to bring about this 
general result; that general result de- 
pending, after all, on our own superior 
power, and on the necessity of submit- 
ting to any terms which we may pre- 
scribe to fallen, fallen, fallen Mexico! 

Sir, the members composing the other 
house, the more popular branch of the 
legislature, have all been elected since, 
I had almost said the fatal, I will say 
the remarkable, events of the 11th and 
13th days of May, 18i6. The other 
house has passed a resolution affirming 
that "the war with Mexico was begun 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



653 



unconstitutionally and unnecessarily by 
the executive government of the United 
States." I concur in that sentiment; I 
liold that to be the most recent and au- 
thentic expression of the will and opin- 
ion of the majority of the people of the 
United States. 

There is, Sir, another proposition, not 
so authentically announced hitln'rto, but, 
in my judgment, eijually true and equally 
capable of demonstration ; and that is, 
that this war was begun, has been con- 
tinued, and is now prosecuted, for the 
great and leading purpose of the acfjui- 
sition of new territory, out of which to 
l)ring new States, with their Mexican 
population, into this our Union of the 
United States. 

If unavowed at first, this purpose did 
not remain unavowed long. However 
often it may be said that we did not go 
to war for conquest, 

" credat Judjeus Apella, 
Non ego," 

yet the moment we get possession of 
territory we must retain it and make it 
our own. Now I think that this origi- 
nal object has not been changed, has not 
been varied. Sir, I think it exists in 
the eyes of those who originally contem- 
j)lated it, and who began the war for it, 
as plain, as attractive to them, and from 
which they no more avert their eyes now 
than they did then or have done at any 
tiine since. We have compelled a treaty 
of cession ; we know in our consciences 
that it is compelled. We use it as an 
instrument and an agency, in conjunc- 
tion with other instruments and other 
agencies of a more formidable and de- 
structive character, to enforce the ces- 
sion of Mexican territory, to acquire 
territory for new States to be added to 
this Union. We know, every intelli- 
gent man knows, that there is no stronger 
desire in the breast of a Mexican citizen 
than to retain the territory which belongs 
to the republic. We know that the Mex- 
ican people will part with it, if part they 
must, with regret, with pangs of sorrow. 
That we know; we know it is all forced; 
and therefore, because we know it must 
be forced, becau.se we know that (whether 



the government, which we consider our 
creature, do or do not agree to it) the 
Mexican jieople will never accede to the 
terms of this treaty but through the im- 
pulse of absolute necessity, and the im- 
pression made upon them by absolute 
and irresistible force, therefore we pur- 
pose to overwhelm them with another 
army. We purpose to raise another 
army of ten thousand regulars and 
twenty thousand volunteers, and to pour 
them in and upon the INIexican people. 

Now, Sir, I should be happy to agree, 
notwithstanding all this tocsin, and all 
this cry of all the Semproniuses in the 
land, that their " voices are still for war," 
— I should be happy to agree, and sub- 
stantially I do agree, to the opinion of 
the Senator from South Carolina. I 
think I have myself uttered the senti- 
ment, within a fortnight, to the same 
effect, that, after all, the. war ivith Mexico 
is substantially over, that there can be no 
more fighting. In the pi-esent state of 
things, my opinion is that the people of 
this country will not sustain the war. 
They will not go for its heavy expenses ; 
they will not find any gratification in 
putting the bayonet to the throats of 
the Mexican people. For my part, I 
hope the ten regiment bill will never be- 
come a law. Three weeks ago I shoidd 
have entertained that hope with the ut- 
most confidence ; events instruct me to 
abate my confidence. I still hope it will 
not pass. 

And here, I dare say, I shall be called 
by some a ' ' Mexican Whig. " The man 
who can stand up here and say that he 
hopes that what the administration pro- 
jects, and the further prosecution of the 
war with Mexico recjuires, may not be 
carried into effect, must be an enemy to 
his country, or what gentlemen have 
considered the same thing, an enemy to 
the President of the United States, and 
to his admini.stration and his party, lie 
is a Mexican. Sir, I think very badly 
of the Mexican cliai'acter, high and low, 
out and out; but names do not terrify 
me. Besides, if I have suffered in this 
respect, if I have rendered myself sub- 
ject to the reproaches of these stipeiuliary 
presses, these hired abusers of the motives 



554 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



of public men, I have the honor, on this 
occasion, to be in very respectable com- 
pany. In the reproachful sense of that 
term, I don't know a greater Mexican 
in this body than the honorable Senator 
from Michigan, the chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. Cass. Will the gentleman be good 
enough to explain wiiat sort of a Mexican 
I am 1 

On the resumption of the bill in the 
Senate the other day, the gentleman told 
us that its principal object was to frighten 
Mexico; it would touch his humanity 
too much to hurt her ! He would fright- 
en her — 

Mr. Cass. Does the gentleman affirm 
that I said that 1 

Yes; twice. 

Mr. Cass. No, Sir, I beg your pardon, 
I did not say it. I did not say it would 
touch my humanity to hurt her. 

Be it so. 

Mr. Cass. Will the honorable Senator 
allow me to repeat mj' statement of the ob- 
ject of the bill ? I said it was twofold : 
first, that it would enable us to prosecute 
tlie war, if necessary ; and, second, tliat it 
would show Mexico we were prepared to 
do so; and thus, by its moral effect, would 
induce her to ratify the treaty. 

The gentleman said, that the princi- 
pal object of the bill was to frighten 
Mexico, and that this would be more 
humane than to harm her. 

Mr. Cass. That's true. 

Well, Sir, the remarkable character- 
istic of that speech, that which makes it 
so much a Mexican speech, is, that the 
gentleman spoke it in the hearing of 
Mexico, as well as in the hearing of this 
Senate. We are accused here, because 
what we say is heard by Mexico, and 
Mexico derives encouragement from what 
is said here. And yet the honorable 
member comes forth and tells Mexico 
that the principal object of the bill is to 
frighten her! The words have passed 
along the wires; they are on the Gulf, 
and are floating away to Vera Cruz ; and 
when they get there, they will signify to 
Mexico, "After all, ye good Mexicans, 



my principal object is to frighten you; 
and to the end that you may not be 
frightened too much, I have given you 
this indication of my purpose." 

But, Sir, in any view of this case, in 
any view of the proper policy of this 
government, to be pursued according to 
any man's apprehension and judgment, 
where is the necessity for this augmenta- 
tion, by regiments, of the military force 
of the country? I hold in my hand here 
a note, which I suppose to be substan- 
tially correct, of the present military 
force of the United States. I cannot 
answer for its entire accuracy, but 1 be- 
lieve it to be substantially according to 
fact. We have twenty-five regiments of 
regular troops, of various arms; if full, 
they would amount to 28,960 rank and 
file, and including officers to 30,296 men. 
These, with the exception of six or seven 
hundred men, are now all out of the 
United States and in field service in 
Mexico, or en route to Mexico. These 
regiments are not full; casualties and 
the climate have sadly reduced their 
numbers. If the recruiting service were 
now to yield ten thousand men, it would 
not more than fill up these regiments, so 
that every brigadier and colonel and cap- • 
tain should have his appropriate and his 
full command. Here is a call, then, on 
the country now for the enlistment of 
ten thousand men, to fill up the regi- 
ments in the foreign service of the 
United States. 

I understand. Sir, that there is a re- 
port from General Scott; from General 
Scott, a man who has performed the 
most brilliant campaign on recent mili- 
tary record, a man who has warred 
against the enemy, warred against the 
climate, warred against a thousand un- 
propitious circumstances, and has car- 
ried the flag of his country to the capital 
of the enemy, honorably, proudly, hu- 
manehj, to his own permanent honor, 
and the great military credit of his coun- 
try , — General Scott ; and where is he ? 
At Pnebla! at Puebla, undergoing an 
inquiry before his inferiors in rank, and 
other persons without military rank ; 
while the high powers he has exercised, 
and exercised with so much distinction, :' 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



555 



are transferred to another, I do not say 
to one unworthy of them, but to one in- 
ferior in rank, station, and experience to 
himself. 

But General Scott reports, as I un- 
derstand, that, in February, there were 
twenty thousand regular troops under 
his command and en route, and we have 
thirty reg^iinents of volunteers for the 
war. If full, this would make tliirty- 
four thousand men, or, including officers, 
thirty-five thousand. So that, if the regi- 
ments were full, there is at this moment 
a number of troops, regular and volun- 
teer, of not less than fifty-five or sixty 
thousand men, including recruits on the 
way. And with these twenty thousand 
men in the field, of regular troops, there 
were also ten thousand volunteers; mak- 
ing, of regulars and volunteers under 
General Scott, thirty thousand men. 
The Senator from Michigan knows these 
things better than I do, but I believe this 
is veiy nearly the fact. Xow all these 
troops are regularly officered ; there is no 
deficiency, in the line or in the staff, of 
officers. They are all full. Where 
tliere is any deficiency it consists of 
men. 

Now, Sir, there may be a plausible 
reason for saying that there is difficulty 
in recruiting at home for the supply of 
deficiency in the volunteer regiments. 
It may be said that volunteers choose to 
enlist under officers of their own knowl- 
edge and selection; they do not incline 
to enlist as individual volunteers, to join 
regiments abroad, under officers of whom 
they know nothing. There may be some- 
thing in that; but pray what conclusion 
does it lead to, if not to this, that all 
these regiments must moulder away, by 
casualties or disease, until the privates 
are less in number than the officers 
themselves. 

But however that may be with respect 
to volunteers, in regard to recruiting for 
the regular .service, in filling up the regi- 
ments by pay and bounties according to 
existing laws, or new laws, if new ones 
are necessary, there is no reason on earth 
why we should now create five hundred 
new officers, for the purpose of getting 
tea thousand more men. The officers 



are already there ; in that respect there 
is no deficiency. All that is wanted is 
men, and there is place for the men; 
and I suppose no gentleman, here or 
elsewhere, thinks that recruiting will go 
on faster than would be necessary to ob- 
tain men to fill up the deficiencies in the 
regiments abroad. 

But now. Sir, what do we want of a 
greater force than we have in Mexico? 
I am not saying. What do we want of a 
force greater than we can supply? but, 
What is the object of bringing these 
new regiments into the field? What do 
we propose? There is no army to fight. 
I suppose there are not five hundred 
men under aims in any part of Mexico; 
probably not half that number, except 
in one place. Mexico is prostrate. It 
is not the government that resists us. 
Why, it is notorious that the government 
of Mexico is on our side, that it is an in- 
strument by which we hope to establish 
such a peace, and accomplish such a 
treaty, as we like. As far as I under- 
stand the matter, the government of 
Mexico owes its life and breath and 
being to the support of our arms, and 
to the hope, I do not say how inspired, 
that somehow or other, and at no dis- 
tant period, she will have the pecuniary 
means of carrying it on, from our three 
millions, or our twelve millions, or from 
some of our other millions. 

What do we propose to do, then, with 
these thirty regiments which it is de- 
signed to throw into Mexico? Are we 
going to cut the throats of her people? 
Are we to thrust the sword deeper and 
deeper into the " vital parts " of Mexico ? 
What is it proposed to do? Sir, I can 
.see no object in it; and yet, while we 
are pressed and urged to adopt this 
proposition to raise ten and twenty 
regiments, we are told, and the public 
is told, and the public believes, that we 
are on the verge of a safe and an hon- 
orable peace. Every one looks eveiy 
morning for tidings of a confirmed peace, 
or of confirmed hopes of peace. We 
gather it from the administration, and 
from every organ of the administration 
from Dan to Beersheba. And yet war- 
like preparations, the incurring of ex- 



556 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



penses, the imposition of new charges 
upon the treasury, are pressed here, as 
if peace were not in all our thoughts, at 
least not in any of our expectations. 

Now, Sir, I propose to hold a plain 
talk to-day; and I say that, according to 
my best judgment, the object of the bill 
is jsatronage, office, the gratification of 
friends. This very measure for raising 
ten regiments creates four or five hun- 
dred officers; colonels, subalterns, and 
not them only, for for all these I feel 
some respect, but there are also pay- 
masters, contractors, persons engaged in 
the transportation service, commissaries, 
even down to sutlers, et id genus omne, 
people who handle the public money 
without facing the foe, one and all of 
whom are true descendants, or if not, 
true representatives, of Ancient Pistol, 
who said, 

" I shall sutler be 
Unto the camp, and profits will accrue." 

Sir, I hope, with no disrespect for the 
applicants, and the aspirants, and the 
patriots (and among them are some sin- 
cere patriots) who would fight for their 
country, and those others who are not 
ready to fight, but who are willing to be 
paid, — with due respect for all of them 
according to their several degrees and 
their merits, I hope they will all be dis- 
appointed. I hope that, as the pleasant 
season advances, the whole may find it 
for their interest to place themselves, of 
mild mornings, in the cars, and take 
their destination to their respective 
places of honorable private occupation 
and of civil employment. Tliey have 
my good wishes that they may find the 
way to their homes from the Avenue and 
the Capitol, and from the purlieus of the 
President's house, in good health them- 
selves, and that they may find their fam- 
ilies all very happy to receive them. 

But, Sir, to speak more seriously, this 
war was waged for the object of creating 
new States, on the southern frontier of 
the United States, out of Mexican terri- 
toiy, and with such population as could 
be found resident thereupon. I have 
opposed this object. I am against all ac- 
1/ cessions of territory to form new States. 
And this is no matter of sentimentality, 



I 



which I am to parade before mass meet- 
ings or before my constituents at home. 
It is not a matter with me of declama- 
tion, or of regret, or of expressed repug- 
nance. It is a matter of firm, unchange- 
able purpose. I yield nothing to the 
force of circumstances that have oc- 
curred, or that I can consider as likely 
to occur. And therefore I say. Sir, 
that, if I were asked to-day whether, 
for the sake of peace, I would take a 
treaty for adding two new States to the 
Union on our southern border, I would 
say. No! distinctly. No! And I wish 
every man in the United States to un- 
derstand that to be my judgment and 
my purpose. 

I said upon our southern border, be- 
cause the present proposition takes that 
locality. I would say the same of the 
western, the northeastern, or of any 
other border. I resist to-day, and for 
ever, and to the end, any proposition 
to add any foreign territory, south or 
west, north or east, to the States of this 
Union, as they are constituted and held 
together under the Constitution. I do 
not want the colonists of England on 
the north ; and as little do I want the 
population of Mexico on the south. I 
resist and reject all, and all with equal 
resolution. Therefore I say, that, if the 
question were put to me to-day, whether 
I would take peace under the present 
state of the country, distressed as it is, 
during the existence of a war odious as 
this is, under circumstances so afflictive 
as now exist to humanity, and so dis- 
turbing to the business of those whom I 
represent, — I say still, if it were put to 
me whether I would have peace, with i 
new States, I would say, No ! no ! And ' 
that because. Sir, in my judgment, there 
is no necessity of being driven into that 
dilemma. Other gentlemen tliink dif- 
ferently. I hold no man's conscience;! 
but I mean to make a clean breast of it 
myself; and I protest that I see no rea- 
son, I believe there is none, why wo 
cannot obtain as safe a peace, as honor- 
able and as prompt a peace, without ter- 
ritory as with it. The two things are 
separable. There is no necessary con- 
nection between them. Mexico does not 



OBJECTS OF THE m^XICAN WAR. 



557 



wish us to take her territory, while she 
receives our money. Far from it. She 
yields her assent, if she yields it at all, 
reluctantly, and we all know it. It is 
the result of force, and there is no man 
here who does not know that. And let 
me say, Sir, that, if this Trist paper 
shall finally be rejected in Mexico, it is 
most likely to be because those who un- 
der our protection hoUl the power there 
cannot persuade the Mexican Congress 
or people to agree to this cession of ter- 
ritory. The thing most likely to break 
up what we now expect to take j^hice is 
the repugnance of the Mexican people to 
part with their territory. They would 
prefer to keep their territory, and that 
•we should keep our money; as I prefer 
we should keep our money, and they 
their territory. We shall see. I pretend 
to no powers of prediction. 1 do not 
know what may happen. The times are 
full of strange events. But I think it 
certain that, if the treaty which has 
gone to Mexico shall fail to be ratified, 
it will be because of the aversion of the 
Mexican Congress, or the Mexican peo- 
ple, to cede the territory, or any part of 
it, belonging to tiieir republic. 

I have said that I would rather have 
no peace for the present, than have a 
peace which brings territory for new 
States; and the reason is, that we shall 
get peace as soon without territory as 
with it, more safe, more durable, and 
vastly more honorable to us, the great 
republic of the world. 

But we hear- gentlemen say. We must 
have some territory, the people demand 
it. I deny it; at least, I see no proof of 
it whatever. I do not doubt that there 
arc individuals of an enterprising char- 
acter, disposed to emigrate, who know 
nothing about New Mexico but that it 
is far off, and nothing about California 
but that it is still farther olf, who are 
tired of the dull pursuits of agriculture 
and of civil life; that there are hundreds 
and thousands of such persons to whom 
whatsoever is new and distant is attrac- 
tive. They feel the spirit of borderers ; 
and the spirit of a borderer, I take it, is 
to be tolerably rontcnfcil with his condi- 
tion where he is, until somebody goes to 



regions beyond him ; and then he is all 
eagerness to take up his traps and go 
still farther than he who has thus got in 
advance of him. With such men the 
desire to emigrate is an irresistible pas- 
sion. At least so thought that sacfa- 
cious observer of human luiture, M. de 
Talleyrand, when he travelled in this 
country in 1794. 

But I say I do not find anywhere any 
considerable and respectable body of 
persons who want more territory, and 
sucii territory. Twenty-four of us last 
year in this house voted against the 
prosecution of the war for territory, be- 
cause we did not want it, both Southern 
and Northern men. I believe the South- 
ern gentlemen who concurred in that 
vote found themselves, even when they 
had gone against what might be sup- 
posed to be local feelings and partiali- 
ties, sustained on the general policy of 
not seeking territory, and by the acqui- 
sition of territory bringing into our pol- 
itics certain embarrassing and embroil- 
ing questions and considerations. I do 
not learn that they suffered from the 
advocacy of such a sentiment. I believe 
they were supported in it ; and I believe 
that through the greater part of the 
South, and even of the Southwest, there 
is no prevalent opinion in favor of ac- 
([uiring territory, and such territory, and 
of the augmentation of our population 
by such an accession. And such, I 
need not say, is, if not the undivided, 
the preponderating sentiment of all the 
North. 

But it is said we must take territoiy 
for the sake of peace. AVe must take 
territory. It is the will of the Presi- 
dent. If we do not now take what he 
olfers, we may fare worse. ^Ir. Polk 
will take no less, that he is fixed ujion. 
He is immovable. He — has — put — 
down — his — foot! Well, Sir, he put 
it down upon "fifty-four forty," but it 
did n't stay. I speak of the President, 
as of all Presidents, ^vithout disrespect. 
I know of no reason why his opinion 
and his will, his purpose, declared to be 
final, should control us, any more than 
our purpose, from eciually conscientious 
motives, and under as high responsibili- 



558 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



ties, should control him. We think he 
is firm, and will not be moved. I should 
be sorry, Sir, very sorry indeed, that 
vie should entertain more respect for the 
firmness of the individual at the head of 
the government than we entertain for 
our own firmness. He stands out against 
us. Do we fear to stand out against 
him? For one, I do not. It appears to 
me to be a slavish doctrine. For one, I 
am willing to meet the issue, and go 
to the people all over this broad land. 
Shall we take peace without new States, 
or refuse peace without new States? I 
will stand upon that, and trust the peo- 
ple. And I do that because I think it 
right, and because I have no distrust of 
the people. I am not unwilling to put 
it to their sovereign decision and arbi- 
tration. I hold this to be a question 
vital, permanent, elementary, in the fu- 
ture prosperity of the country and the 
maintenance of the Constitution ; and I 
am willing to trust that question to the 
people. I prefer that it should go to 
them, because, if what I take to be a 
great constitutional principle, or what is 
essential to its maintenance, is to be 
broken down, let it be the act of the 
people themselves ; it shall never be my 
act. I, therefore, do not distrust the 
people. I am willing to take their sen- 
timent, from the Gulf to the British 
Provinces, and from the ocean to the 
Missouri: Will you continue tlie war for 
territory, to be purchased, after all, at 
an enormous price, a price a thousand 
times the value of all its purchases, or 
take peace, contenting yourselves with 
the honor we have reaped by the mili- 
tary achievements of the army? Will 
you take peace without territory, and 
j)reserve the integrity of the Constitu- 
tion of the country? I am entirely will- 
ing to stand upon that question. I will 
therefore take the issue: Peace, with no 
new States, keeping our own money our- 
selves, or war till new States shall be ac- 
quired, and vast sums paid. That is the 
true issue. I am willing to leave that 
before the people and to the people, be- 
cause it is a question for themselves. If 
they support me and think with me, 
very well. If otherwise, if they will 



have territory and add new States to 
the Union, let them do so; and let them 
be the artificers of their own fortune, 
for good or for evil. 

But, Sir, we tremble before executive 
power. The truth cannot be concealed. 
We tremble before executive power! 
Mr. Polk will take no less than this. If 
we do not take this, the king's anger 
may kindle, and he will give us what is 
worse. 

But now, Sir, who and what is Mr. 
Polk? I speak of him with no manner 
of disrespect. I mean, thereby, only to 
ask who and what is the President of 
the United States for the current mo- 
ment. He is in the last year of his ad- 
ministration. Formally, officially, it can 
only be drawn out till the fourth of 
March, while really and substantially we 
know that two short months will, or may, 
produce events that will render the dura- 
tion of that oflicial term of very little im- 
portance. We are on the eve of a Presi- 
dential election. That machinery which 
is employed to collect public opinion or 
party opinion will be put in operation two 
months hence. We shall see its result. 
It may be that the present incumbent of 
the Presidential office will be again pre- 
sented to his party friends and admirers 
for their suffrages for the next Presiden- 
tial term. I do not say how probable or 
improbable this is. Perhaps it is not 
entirely probable. Suppose this not to 
be the result, what then? Why, then 
Mr. Polk becomes as absolutely insig- 
nificant as any respectable man among 
the public men of the United States. 
Honored in private life, valued for his 
private character, respectable, never em- 
inent, in public life, he will, from the 
moment a new star arises, have just as 
little influence as you or I; and, so far 
as I am concerned, that certainly is little 
enough. 

Sir, political partisans, and aspirants, 
and office-seekers, are not sunflowers. 
They do not 

" turn to their god when he sets 
The same look which they turned when he rose." 

No, Sir, if the respectable gentleman 
now at the head of the government be 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



559 



nominated, there will be those who will 
commend his consistency, who will be 
bound to maintain it. for the interest of 
his party friends will require it. It will 
be done. If otherwise, who is there in 
the whole length and breadth of the 
land that will care for the consistency 
of the present incumbent of the office? 
There will tlien be new objects. " Man- 
ifest destiny" will have pointed out 
some other man. Sir, the eulogies are 
now written, the commendations are 
already elaborated. I do not say every 
thing fulsome, but every thing pane- 
gyrical, has already been written out, 
with blanks for names, to be filled 
when the convention shall adjourn. 
AMien '■ manifest destiny " shall be un- 
rolled, all these strong panegj^rics, wher- 
ever they may light, made beforehand, 
laid up in pigeon-holes, studied, framed, 
emblazoned, and embossed, will all come 
out ; and then there will be found to be 
somebody in tlie United States whose 
merits have been strangely overlooked, 
marked out by Providence, a kind of 
miracle, while all will wonder that no- 
body ever thought of him before, as a 
fit, and the only fit, man to be at the 
head of this great republic ! 

I shrink not, tlierefore, from any thing 
that I feel to be my duty, from any ap- 
prehension of the importance and impos- 
ing dignity, and the power of will, as- 
cribed to the present incumbent of office. 
But I wish we possessed that power of 
will. I wish we had that firmness. Yes, 
Sir, I wish we liad adli£rence. 1 wish we 
could gather something from the spirit 
of our brave forces, who have met the 
enemy under circumstances most adverse 
and have stood the shock. I wish we 
could imitate Zacharj' Taylor in his biv- 
ouac on the field of Euena Vista. He 
said he "would remain for the night; 
he would feel the enemy in the morning, 
and try his position." I wish, before 
we surrender, we could make up our 
minds to "/ee/ the enemy, and try his 
position," and I tliink we should find 
him, as Taylor did, under the early sun, 
on his way to San Luis Potosi. That is 
my judgment. 

But, Sir, I come to the all-absorbing 



question, more particularly, of the crea- 
tion of New States. 

Some years before I entered public 
life, Louisiana had been obtained under 
the treaty with France. Shortly after, 
Florida was obtained under the treaty 
with Spain. These two countries were 
situated on our frontier, and command- 
ed the outlets of the great rivers which 
flow into the Gulf. As I have had oc- 
casion to say, in the first of these in- 
stances, the President of the United 
States ' supposed that an amendment 
of the Constitution was required. He 
acted upon that supposition. Mr. Madi- 
son was Secretary of State, and, upon 
the suggestion of the President, pro- 
posed that the proper amendment to the 
Constitution should be submitted, to 
bring Louisiana into the Union. Mr. 
Madison drew it, and submitted it to 
Mr. Adams, as I have understood. Mr. 
Madison did not go upon any general 
idea that new States might be admitted; 
he did not proceed to a general amend- 
ment of the Constitution in that respect. 
The amendment which he proposed and 
submitted to Mr. Adams was a simple 
declaration, by a new article, that '• the 
Province of Louisiana is hereby declared 
to be i^art and parcel of the United 
States." But public opinion, seeing the 
great importance of the acquisition, took 
a turn favorable to the affirmation of the 
power. The act was acquiesced in, and 
Louisiana became a part of the Union, 
without any amendment of the Consti- 
tution. 

On the example of Louisiana, Florida 
was admitted. 

Xow, Sir, I consider those transactions 
as passed, settled, legalized. There they 
stand as matters of political history. 
They are facts against which it would 
be idle at this day to contend. 

My first agency in matters of this kind 
was upon the proposition for admitting 
Texas into this Union. That 1 tliought 
it my duty to oppose, upon the general 
gi-ound of opjxising all formation of new 
States out of foreign territory, and, I 
may add, and I ought to add in justice, 
of States in which slaves were to be rep- 
1 Mr. JfiTerson. 



560 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAE. 



resented in the Congress of the United 
States. I was opposed to this on the 
ground of its inequality. It happened 
to nie, Sir, to be called upon to address 
a political meeting in New York, in 
1837, soon after the recognition of Texan 
Independence. I state now, Sir, what 
I have often stated before, that no man, 
from the first, has been a more sincere 
well-wisher to the government and the 
people of Texas than myself. I looked 
upon the achievement of their indejsen- 
dence in the battle of San Jacinto as an 
extraordinary, almost a marvellous, in- 
cident in the affairs of mankind. I 
was among the first disposed to ac- 
knowledge her independence. But from 
the fii'st, down to this moment, I have 
opposed, as far as I was able, the an- 
nexation of new States to this Union. 
I stated my reasona'on the occasion now 
referred to, in language which I have 
now before me, and which I beg to pre- 
sent to the Senate. 

Mr. Webster here read the passage from 
his speech at Niblo's Saloon, New York, 
which will be found in a previous part 
of tliis work, pages 429, 430, beginning, 
" But it cannot be disguised, Gentlemen, 
that a desire, or an intention, is already 
manifested to annex Texas to the United 
States." 

Well, Sir, for a few years I held a 
position in the executive administration 
of the government. I left the Depart- 
ment of State in 1843, in the month of 
May. Within a month after, another 
(an intelligent gentleman, for whom I 
cherished a high resjiect, and who came 
to a sad and untimely end) had taken 
my place, I had occasion to know, not 
officially, but from circumstances, that 
the annexation of Texas was taken up 
by ]\Ir. Tyler's administration as an ad- 
ministration measure. It was pushed, 
pressed, insisted on; and I believe the 
honorable gentleman to whom I have 
referred ^ had something like a passion 
for the accomplishment of this purpose. 
And I am afraid that the President of 
the United States ^ at that time suif ered 
his ardent feelings not a little to control 



1 Mr. Upshur. 



2 Mr. Tyler. 



his more prudent judgment. At any 
rate, I saw, in 1843, that annexation 
had become a purpose of the adminis- 
tration. I was not in Congress nor in 
public life. But;' seeing this state of 
things, I thought it my duty to admon- 
ish the country, so far as I could, of the 
existence of that purpose. There are 
gentlemen at the North, many of them, 
there are gentlemen now in the Capitol, 
who know that, in the summer of 1843, 
being fully persuaded that this purpose 
was embraced with zeal and determina- 
tion by the executive department of the 
government of the United States, I 
thought it my duty, and asked them 
to concur with me in the attempt, to 
make that purpose known to the coun- 
try. I conferred with gentlemen of 
distinction and influence. I proposed 
means for exciting public attention to 
the question of annexation, before it 
should have become a party question; 
for I had learned that, when any topic 
becomes a party question, it is in vain 
to argue upon it. 

But the optimists and the qtiietists, 
and those who said. All things are well, 
and let all things alone, discouraged, 
discountenanced, and repressed any 
such effort. The North, they said, 
could take care of itself; the country 
could take care of itself, and would not 
sustain Mr. Tyler in his project of an- 
nexation. When the time should come, 
they said, the power of the North would . 
be felt, and would be found sufficient to 
resist and prevent the consummation of 
the measure. And I could now refer to 
paragraphs and articles in the most re- 
spectable and leading journals of the 
North, in which it was attempted to 
produce the impression that there was 
no danger; there could be no addition 
of new States, and men need not alarm 
themselves about that. 

I was not in Congress, Sir, when the 
preliminary resolutions, providing for 
the annexation of Texas, passed. I 
only know that, up to a very short 
period before the passage of those reso- 
lutions, the impression in that part of 
the country of which I have spoken 
was, that no such measure could be 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



661 



adopted. But I have found, in the 
course of thirty years' experience, that 
whatever measures tl'f executive gov- 
ernment may embrace and push are 
quite likely to succeed in the end. 
There is always a giving way some- 
where. The executive government 
acts with uniformity, with steadiness, 
with entire unity of purpose. And 
sooner or later, often enough, and, ac- 
cording to my construction of our his- 
tory, quite too often, it effects its 
jnirposes. In this way it becomes the 
predominating power of the govern- 
ment. 

AVell, Sir, just before the commence- 
ment of the i>resent administration, the 
resolutions for the annexation of Texas 
were passed in Congress. Texas coiv- 
plied with the provisions of those reso- 
lutions, and was here, or the case was 
hero, on the 22d day of December, 1845, 
for her final admission into the Union, 
as one of the States. I took occasion 
then to say, that I hoped I had shown 
all proper regard for Texas ; that I had 
been certainly opposed to annexation; 
that, if I should go over the whole mat- 
ter again, I should have nothing new to 
add; that I had acted, all along, under 
the unanimous declaration of all par- 
ties, and of the legislature of ]Massa- 
chusetts; that I thought there must be 
some limit to the extent of our terri- 
tories, and that I wished this country 
should exhibit to the world the ex- 
ample of a powerful republic, without 
greediness and himger of empire. And 
I added, that while I held, with as much 
faithfulness as any citizen of the coun- 
try, to all the original arrangements 
and compromises of the Constitution 
under which we live, I never could, and 
I never should, bring myself to be in 
favor of the admission of any States 
into the Union as slave-holding States; 
and I might have added, any States at 
all, to be formed out of territories not 
now belonging to us. 

Kow, as I have said, in all this I 
acted under the resolutions of the State 
of Massachusetts, certainly concurrent 
with my own judgment, so often re- 
peated, and reatlirmed by the unani- 



mous consent of all men of all parties, 
that I could not well go through the 
series, pointing out, not only the im- 
policy, but the unconstitutionality, of 
such annexation. If a State proposes 
to come into the Union, and to come in 
as a slave State, then there is an aug- 
mentation of the inequality in the rep- 
resentation of the people ; an inequality 
already existing, with which I do not 
quarrel, and which I never will attempt 
to alter, but shall preserve as long as I 
have a vote to give, or any voice in this 
government, because it is a part of the 
original compact. Let it stand. But 
then there is another consideration of 
vastly more general importance even 
than that; more general, because it 
affects all the States, free and slave- 
holding ; and it is, that, if States 
formed out of territories thus thinly 
populated come into the Union, they 
necessarily and inevitably break up 
the relation existing between the two 
branches of the government, and de- 
stroy its balance. They break up the 
intended relation between the Senate 
and the House of Representatives. If 
you bring in new States, any State that 
comes in must have two Senators. She 
may come in with fifty or sixty thou- 
sand people, or more. You may have, 
from a particular State, more Senators 
than you have Representatives. Can 
any thing occur to disfigure and derange 
the form of government under which 
we live more signally than that? Here 
would be a Senate bearing no propor- 
tion to the people, out of all relation to 
them, by the addition of new States; 
from some of them only one Repre- 
sentative, perhaps, and two Senators, 
whereas the larger States may have ten, 
fifteen, or even thirty Representatives, 
and but two Senators. The Senate, 
augmented by these new Senators com- 
ing from States where there are few peo- 
ple, becomes an odious oligarchy. It 
holds power without any adequate con- 
stituency. Sir, it is but " borough- 
mongering" upon a large scale. Now, 
I do not depend upon theory; I ask the 
Senate and the country to look at facts, 
to see where we were when we made our 



562 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



departure three years ago, and -where we 
now are; and I leave it to the imagina- 
tion to conjecture where we shall be. 

We admitted Texas, — one State for 
the present; but. Sir, if you refer to the 
resolutions providing for the annexation 
of Texas, you find a provision that it 
shall be in the power of Congress here- 
after to make four new States out of 
Texan territory. Present and prospec- 
tively, five new States, with ten Senators, 
may come into the Union out of Texas. 
Three years ago we did this; we now 
propose to make two States. Undoubt- 
edly, if we take, as the President recom- 
mends, New Mexico and California, 
there must then be four new Senators. 
We shall then have provided, in these 
territories out of the United States along 
our southern borders, for the creation 
of States enough to send fourteen Sen- 
ators into this chamber. Now, what 
will be the relation between these Sena- 
tors and the people they represent, or the 
States from which they come? I do not 
understand that there is any very accu- 
rate census of Texas. It is generally 
supposed to contain one hundred and 
fifty thousand persons. I doubt whether 
it contains above one hundred thousand. 

Mr. Mangum. It contains one hundred 
and forty-nine thousand. 

My honorable friend on my left says, 
a hundred and forty-nine thousand. I 
put it down, then, one hundred and fifty 
thousand. Well, Sir, Texas is not des- 
tined, probably, to be a country of dense 
population. We will suppose it to have 
at the present time a population of near 
one hundred and fifty thousand. New 
Mexico may have sixty or seventy thou- 
sand inhabitants.; say seventy thousand. 
In California, there are not supposed to 
be above twenty-five thousand men; but 
undoubtedly, if this territory should be- 
come ours, persons from Oregon, and 
from our Western States, will find their 
way to San Francisco, where there is 
some good land, and we may suppose 
they will shortly amount to sixty or sev- 
enty thousand. We will put them down 
at seventy thousand. Then the whole 
territory in this estimate, which is as 



high as any man puts it, will contain 
two hundred and ninety thousand per- 
sons, and they will send us, whenever 
we ask for them, fourteen Senators; a 
population less than that of the State 
of Vermont, and not the eighth part of 
that of New York. Fourteen Senators, 
and not as many people as Vermont! 
and no more people than New Hamp- 
shire! and not so many people as the 
good State of New Jersey ! 

But then. Sir, Texas claims to the 
line of the Rio Grande, and if it be her 
true line, why then of course she absorbs 
a considerable part, nay, the greater part, 
of the population of what is now called 
New Mexico. I do not argue the ques- 
tion of the true southern or western line 
of Texas; I only say, that it is a^jparent 
to everybody who will look at the map, 
and learn any thing of the matter, that 
New Mexico cannot be divided by this 
river, the Rio Grande, which is a shal- 
low, fordable, insignificant stream, creep- 
ing along through a narrow valley, at 
the base of enormous mountains. New 
Mexico must remain together; it must 
be a State, with its seventy thousand 
people, and so it will be; and so will 
California. 

But then. Sir, suppose Texas to re- 
main a unit, and but one State for the 
present; still we shall have three States, 
Texas, New Mexico, and California.N 
We shall have six Senators, then, for 
less than three hundred thousand peo- 
ple. We shall have as many Senators 
for three hundred thousand people in 
that region as we have for New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Ohio, with four or 
five millions of people; and that is what 
we call an equal representation ! Is not 
this enormous? Have gentlemen con- 
sidered this? Have they looked at it? 
Are they willing to look it in the face, 
and then say they embrace it? I trust, 
Sir, the people will look at it and con- 
sider it. And now let me add, that this 
disproportion can never be diminished; 
it must remain for ever. How are you 
going to diminish it? Why, here is 
Texas, with a hundred and forty-nine 
tliousand people, with one State. Sup- 
pose that population should flow into 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



563 



Texas, where will it go? Not to any 
dense point, but to be spread over all 
that region, in places remote from the 
Gnlf. in places remote from what is now 
the capital of Texas; and therefore, as 
soon as there are in other portions of 
Texas people enough within our com- 
mon construction of the Constitution and 
our practice in respect to the admission 
of States, my honorable friend from 
Texas ^ will have a new State, and I 
have no doubt he has chalked it out 
already- 

^ As to New Mexico, its population is 
not likely to increase. It is a settled 
country; the people living along in the 
bottom of the valley on the sides of a 
little stream, a garter of land only on 
one side and the other, filled by coarse 
landholders and miserable peons. It can 
sustain, not only under this cultivation, 
but under any cultivation that our Amer- 
ican race would ever submit to, no more 
people than are there now. There will, 
then, be two Senators for sixty thousand 
inhabitants in New Mexico to the end 
of our lives and to the end of the lives 
of our children. 

And how is it with California? We 
propose to take California, from the forty- 
second degree of north latitude down to 
the thirty-second. We propose to take 
ten degrees along the coast of the Pacific. 
Scattered along the coast for that great 
distance are settlements and villages and 
ports; and in the rear all is wilderness 
and barrenness, and Indian country. 
But if, just about San Francisco, and 
perhaps Monterey, emigrants enough 
should settle to make up one State, then 
the people five hundred jniles off would 
have another State. And so this dis- 
proportion of the Senate to the people 
will go on, and must go on, and we can- 
not prevent it. 

I say, Sir, that, according to my con- 
scientious conviction, we are now fixing 
on the Constitution of the United States, 
and its frame of government, a mon- 
strosity, a disfiguration, an enormity! 
Sir, I hardly dare trust myself. I don't 
know but I may be under some delusion. 
It may be the weakness of my eyes that 
1 Mr. Rusk. 



forms this monstrous apparition. But, 
if I may trust myself, if I can persuade 
myself that I am in my right mind, then 
it does appear tt) nu' that we in this Sen- 
ate have been and are acting, and are 
likely to be acting hereafter, and imme- 
diately, a part which will form the most 
remarkable epoch in the history of our 
country. I hold it to be enormons, fla- 
grant, an outrage upon all the principles 
of popular republican government, and 
on the elementary provisions of the Con- 
stitution under which we live, and which 
we have sworn to support. 

But then. Sir, what relieves the case 
from this enormity? What is our reli- 
ance? Why, it is that we stipulate that 
these new States shall only be brought 
in at a suitable time. And pray, what 
is to constitute the suitableness of time? 
Who is to judge of it? I tell you. Sir, 
that suitable time will come when the 
preponderance of party power here makes 
it necessary to bring in_ii£iv_Statea. Be 
assured it will be a suitable time when 
votes are wanted in this Senate. We 
have had some little experience of that. 
Texas came in at a "suitable time," a 
verjj suitable time! Texas was finally 
admitted in December, 1815. jNIy friend 
near me here, for whom I have a great 
regard, and whose acquaintance I have 
cultivated with pleasure,^ took his seat 
in March, 1846, with his colleague. In 
July, 1846, these two Texan votes turned 
the balance in the Senate, and over- 
threw the tariff of 1842, in my judg- 
ment the best system of revenue ever 
established in this country. Gentlemen 
on the opposite side think otherwise. 
They think it fortunate. They think 
that was a suitable time, and they mean 
to take care that other times shall be 
equally suitalde. I understand it per- 
fectly well. That is the difference of 
opinion between me and these honora- 
ble gentlemen. To their policy, their 
objects, and their purposes the time was 
suitable, and the aid was efficient and 
decisive. 

Sir, in 1850 perhaps a similar ques- 
tion may be agitated here. It is not 
likely to be before that time, but agi- 
1 Mr. Rusk. 



564 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



tated it will be then, unless a change 
in the administration of the government 
shall take place. According to m.y ap- 
prehension, looking at general results as 
flowing from our established system of 
commerce and revenue, in two years 
from this time we shall probably be en- 
gaged in a new revision of our system : 
in the work of establishing, if we can, a 
tariff of sj^ecific duties ; of protecting, if 
we can, our domestic industry and the 
manufactures of the country; in the 
work of preventing, if we can, the over- 
whelming flood of foreign nnportations. 
Suppose that to be part of the future : that 
would be exactly the "suitable time," 
if necessary, for two Senators from New 
Mexico to make their appearance here ! 

But, again, we hear another halcyon, 
soothing tone, which quiets none of my 
alarms, assuages none of my apprehen- 
sions, commends me to my nightly rest 
with no more resignation. And that is, 
the plea that we may trust the popular 
branch of the legislature, we may look 
to the House of Representatives, to the 
Northern and Middle States and even 
the sound men of the South, and trust 
them to take care that States be not ad- 
mitted sooner than they should be, or 
for party purposes. I am compelled, 
by experience, to distrust all such reli- 
ances. If we cannot rely on ourselves, 
when we have the clear constitutional 
authority competent to carry us through , 
and the motives intensely powerful, I 
beg to know how we can rely on others. 
Have we more reliance on the patriot- 
ism, the firmness, of others, than on 
our own? 

Besides, experience shows us that 
things of this sort may be sprung upon 
Congress and the peojile. It was so in 
the case of Texas. It was so in the 
Twenty-eighth Congress. The mem- 
bers of that Congress wei-e not chosen 
to decide the question of annexation or 
no annexation. They came in on other 
grounds, political and party, and were 
supported for reasons not connected 
with that question. What then? The 
administration sprung upon them the 
question of annexation. It obtained 
a snap judgment upon it, and carried 



the measure of annexation. That is in- 
dubitable, as I could show by many in- 
stances, of which I shall state only one. 

Four gentlemen from the State of Con- 
necticut were elected before the ques- 
tion arose, belonging to the dominant 
party. They had not been here long 
before they were committed to annexa- 
tion; and when it was known in Con- 
necticut that annexation was in contem- 
plation, remonstrances, private, public, 
and legislative, were uttered, in tones 
that any one could hear who could hear 
thunder. Did they move them? Not 
at all. Every one of them voted for an- 
nexation! The election came on, and 
they were turned out, to a man. But 
what did those care who had had the 
benefit of their votes? Such agencies, 
if it be not more proper to call them 
such instrumentalities, retain respect no 
longer than they continue to be useful. 

Sir, we take New Mexico and Cali- 
fornia; w^ho is weak enough to suppose 
that there is an end? Don't we hear it 
avowed every day, that it would be 
proper also to take Sonora, Tamaulipas, 
and other provinces of Northern Mex- 
ico? Who thinks that the hunger for 
dominion will stop here of itself? It is 
said, to be sure, that our present acqui- 
sitions will prove so lean and unsatis- 
factory, that we shall seek no further. 
In my judgment, we may as well say of 
a rapacious animal, that, if he has made 
one unproductive hunt, he will not try 
for a better foray. 

But further. There are some things 
one can argue against with temper, and 
submit to, if overruled, without morti- 
fication. There are other things that 
seem to affect one's consciousness of 
being a sensible man, and to imply a 
disposition to impose upon his common 
sense. And of this class of topics, or 
pretences, I have never heard of any 
thing, and I cannot conceive of any 
thing, more ridiculous in itself, more 
absurd, and more affrontive to all sober 
judgment, than the cry that we are get- 
ting indemnity by the acquisition of 
New Mexico and California. I hold 
they are not worth a dollar; and we 
pay for them vast sums of money ! We 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



565 



have expended, as everybody knows, 
large treasures in the prosecution of the 
war; and now what is to constitute this 
indemnity V ^Vhat do gentlemen mean 
bv it V I-iet us see a little how this 
stands. We get a country; we get, in 
the first instance, a cession, or an ac- 
knowledgment of boundary, (I care not 
•which way you state it,) of the coun- 
try between the Nueces and the Kio 
Grande. What this country is appears 
from a publication made by a gentle- 
man in the other house. ^ He speaks of 
tlie country in the following manner: — 

" The country from the Nueces to the 
valley of the Kio Grande is poor, sterile, 
sandy, and barren, with not a single tree of 
any size or value on our whole route. The 
only tree which we saw was the niusquit- 
trce, and very few of these. The uiusquit 
is a small tree, resembling an old and de- 
cayed peach-tree. The whole country may 
be truly called a perfect waste, uninliabited 
and uninhabitable. There is not a drop of 
running water between the two rivers, except 
in the two small streams of San Salvador 
and Santa Gertrudis, and these only con- 
tain water in the rainy season. Neither of 
them had running water when we passed 
them. The chaparral commences within 
forty or fifty miles of the Rio Grande. 
This is poor, rocky, and sandy ; covered 
with prickly-pear, thistles, and almost every 
sticking thing, constituting a thick and 
perfectly impenetrable undergrowth. For 
any useful or agricultural purpose, the 
country is not worth a sous. 

" So far as we were able to form any 
opinion of this desert upon tlie other routes 
which had been travelled, its character, 
everywhere between the two rivers, is 
pretty nuich the same. We learned that 
the route pursued by General Taylor, south 
of ours, was through a country shnilar to 
that through wliich we passed; as also was 
tliat travelled by General Wool from San 
Antonio to Presidio on the Kio Grande. 
From what we both saw and heard, the 
wliole connnand came to the conclusion 
wliich I iiave already expressed, that it was 
wortli nut/any. 1 have no hesitation in say- 
ing, tliat I would not hazard the life of one 
valuable and useful man for every foot of 
land between San Patricio and the valley of 
I the Rio Grande. The country is not now, 
and can never be, of the slightest value." 

1 Major Gaines. 



Major Gaines has been there lately, 
lie is a competent observer. lie is con- 
tradicted by nobody. And so far as 
that country is concerned, I take it for 
granted that it is not worth a dollar. 

Now of New Mexico, what of tliat? 
Forty-nine fiftieths, at least, of the 
whole of New Mexico, are a barren 
waste, a desert plain of mountain, with 
no wood, no timber. Little fagots for 
lighting a fire are carried thirty or forty 
miles on mules. There is no fall of 
rain there, as in temperate climates. It 
is Asiatic in scenery altogether: enor- 
mously high mountains, running up 
some of them ten thousand feet, with 
narrow valleys at their bases, through 
which streams sometimes trickle along. 
A strip, a garter, winds along, through 
which runs the Rio Grande, from far 
away up in the Rocky ^lountains to 
latitude 33°, a distance of three or 
four hundred miles. There these sixty 
thousand persons reside. In the moun- 
tains on the right and left are streams 
which, obeying the natural tendency as 
tributaries, should flow into the Rio 
Grande, and which, in certain seasons, 
when rains are abundant, do, some of 
them, actually reach the Rio Grande; 
while the greater part always, and all 
for the greater part of the year, never 
reach an outlet to the sea, but are ab- 
sorbed in the sands and desert plains of 
the country. There is no cultivation 
there. There is cultivation where there 
is artificial watering or irrigation, and 
nowhere else. Men can live only in 
the narrow valley, and in the gorges of 
the mountains which rise round it, and 
not along the course of the streams which 
lose themselves in the sands. 

Now tiiere is no public domain in 
New Mexico, not a foot of land, to the 
soil of which we shall obtain title. Not 
an acre becomes ours when the country 
becomes ours. More than that, the 
country is as full of people, such as they 
are, as it is likely to be. There is not 
the least thing in it to invite settlement 
from the fertile valley of the Mississipjii. 
Aiul I undertake to say, there would 
not be two hundred families of persons 
who would enjigrate from the United 



566 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



V 



States to New Mexico, for agriciiltural 
purposes, in fifty years. They could 
not live there. Suppose they were to 
cultivate the lands; they could only 
make them productive in a slight degree 
by irrigation or artificial watering. The 
people there produce little, and live on 
little. That is not the characteristic, I 
take it, of the people of the Eastern or 
of the Middle States, or of the Valley of 
the Mississippi. They produce a good 
deal, and they consume a good deal. 

Again, Sir, New Mexico is not like 
Texas. I have hoped, and I still hope, 
that Texas will be filled up from among 
ourselves, not with Spaniards, not with 
peons; that its inhabitants will not be 
Mexican landlords, with troops of slaves, 
predial or otherwise. 

Mr. Rusk here rose, and said that he dis- 
liked to interrupt the Senator, and there- 
fore he had said nothing while he was de- 
scribing the country between the Nueces 
and the Rio Grande ; but he wished now to 
say, that, wlicn that country comes to be 
known, it will be found to be as valuable 
as any part of Texas. The valley of the 
Rio Grande is valuable from its source to 
its mouth. But he did not look upon that 
as indemnity; he claimed that as the i-iglitoi 
Texas. So far as the Mexican population 
is concerned, there is a good deal of it in 
Te.xas ; and it comprises many respectable 
persons, wealthy, intelligent, and distin- 
guished. A good many are now moving in 
from New Me.xico, and settling in Texas. 

I take what I say from Major Gaines. 
But I am glad to hear that any part of 
New Mexico is fit for the foot of civil- 
ized man. And I am glad, moreover, 
that there are some persons in New 
Mexico who are not so blindly attached 
to their miserable condition as not to 
make an effort to come out of their 
country, and get into a better. 

Sir, I would, if I had time, call the 
attention of the Senate to an instructive 
speech made in the other house by Mr. 
Smith of Connecticut. He seems to 
have examined all the authorities, to 
have conversed with all the travellers, 
to have corresi^onded with all our agents. 
His speech contains communications 
from all of thera; and I commend it to 



every man in the United States who 
wishes to know what we are about to ac- 
quire by the annexation of New Mexico. 
New Mexico is secluded, isolated, a 
place by itself, in the midst and at the 
foot of vast mountains, five hundred 
miles from the settled part of Texas, 
and as far from anywhere else ! It does 
not belong anywhere ! It has no belong- 
ings about it! At this moment it is 
absolutely more retired and shut out 
from communication with the civilized 
world than Hawaii or any of the other 
islands of the Pacific sea. In seclusion 
and remoteness, New Mexico may press 
hard on the character and condition of 
Typee. And its people are infinitely 
less elevated, in morals and condition, 
than the people of the Sandwich Islands. 
\MVe had much better have Senators 
from Oahu. ) They are far less intelli- 
gent than the better class of our Indian 
neighbors. Commend me to the Chero- 
kees, to the Choctaws; if you please, 
speak of the Pawnees, of the Snakes, 
the Flatfeet, of any thing but the Dig- 
ging Indians, and I will be satisfied 
not to take the people of New Mexico. 
Have they any notion of our institu- 
tions, or of any free institutions? Have 
they any notion of popular government? 
Not the slightest ! Not the slightest on. 
earth! When the question is asked. 
What will be their constitution? it is 
farcical to talk of such people making 
a constitution for themselves. They do 
not know the meaning of the term, they 
do not know its import. They know 
nothing at all about it; and I can tell 
you. Sir, that when they are made a 
Territory, and are to be made a State, 
such a constitution as the executive 
power of this government may think fit 
to send them will be sent, and will be 
adopted. The constitution of our fellow- 
citizens of New Mexico will be framed 
in the city of Washington. 

Now what says in regard to all Mexico 
Colonel Hardin, that most lamented and 
distinguished officer, honorably known 
as a member of the other house, and 
who has fallen gallantly fighting in the 
service of his country? Here is his 
description : — 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



567 



" The whole country is miserably wa- 
tered. Large districts have no water at all. 
The streams arc small, and at great dis- 
tances apart. One day we marched on the 
road from ^lonclova to I'arras thirty-five 
miles without water, a pretty severe day's 
marching for infantry. 

" Grass is very scarce, and indeed there 
is none at all in many regions for miles 
square. Its place is supplied with prickly- 
pear and thorny bushes. There is not one 
acre in two hundred, more probably not 
one in five hundred, of all the land we have 
seen in Mexico, which can ever be culti- 
vated ; the greater j)()rtion of it is the most 
desolate region I could ever have imagined. 
The pure granite hills of New England are 
a paradise to it, for they are witliout the 
thornj' briers and venomous reptiles winch 
infest the barbed barrenness of Mexico. 
The good land and cultivated spots in 
Mexico are but dots on the map. Were it 
not that it takes so very little to support a 
Mexican, and that the land which is culti- 
vated yields its produce with little labor, it 
would be surprising how its sparse popula- 
tion is sustained. All the towns we have 
visited, with perhaps the exception of Par- 
ras, are depopulating, as is also the whole 
country. 

" The people are on a par with their 
land. One in two hundred or five hundred 
j is rich, and lives like a nabob ; the rest are 
peons, or servants sold for debt, who work 
for their masters, and are as subservient as 
the slaves of the South, and look like In- 
dians, and, indeed, are not more capable of 
self-government. One man. Jacobus San- 
chez, owns three fourths of all the land our 
colunm has passed over in ^lexico. We 
are told we have seen the best part of 
Northern Mexico ; if so, the whole of it is 
not worth much. 

" I came to Mexico in favor of getting 
or taking enough of it to pay the expenses 
of the war. I now doubt whether all 
Northern Mexico is worth the expenses of 
our column of three thousand men. The 
expenses of the war must be enormous; we 
have ])aid enormous ))rices for every tiling, 
much beyond the usual prices of the coun- 
try." 

There it is. That's all North Mexico ; 
and New Mexico is not the better part 
of it. 

Sir, there is a recent traveller, not 
unfriendly to the United States, if we 
may judge from his work, for he speaks 



well of us everywhere ; an Englishman, 
named Ruxton. He gives an account 
of the morals and the manners of the 
population of New Mexico. And, j\Ir. 
President and Senators, I shall take 
leave to introduce you to these soon to ^ 
be your respected fellow-citizens of New 
Mexico : — 

" It is remarkable that, although existing 
from the earliest times of the colonization 
of New Mexico, a period of two centuries, 
in a state of continual hostility with the 
numerous savage tribes of Indians who 
surround their territory, and in constant 
insecurity of life and property from their 
attacks, being also far removed from the 
enervating influences of large cities, and, 
in their isolated situation, entirely depend- 
ent upon their own resources, the inhabi- 
tants arc totally destitute of those qualities 
which, for the above reasons, we might 
naturally have expected to distinguish 
them, and are as deficient in energy of ^^ 
character and physical courage as they are 
in all the moral and intellectual qualities. 
In their social state but one degree removed 
from the veriest savages, they nn'ght take a 
lesson even from these in morality and the 
conventional decencies of life. Imposing 
no restraint on their passions, a shameless 
and universal concubinage exists, and a 
total disregard of morality, to which it 
would be impossible to find a parsillel in 
any country calling itself civilized. A want 
of honorable principle, and consummate 
duplicity and treachery, characterize all 
their dealings. Liars by nature, they are 
treacherous and faithless to their friends, 
cowardly and cringing to their enemies ; 
cruel, as all cowards are, they unite savage 
ferocity with their want of animal courage; 
as an example of which, their recent mas- 
sacre of Governor Bent, and other Ameri- 
cans, may be given, one of a hundred 
instances." 

These, Sir, are soon to be our beloved 
countrymen ! 

^Ir. President, for a good many years 
I have struggled in oppo.sition to every 
thing which I thought tended to strength- 
en the arm of executive power. I tiiink 
it is growing more and more formidable 
everyday. And I tiiink that by yielding 
to it in this, as in other instances, we 
give it a strength which it will be dilR- 
cult hereafter to resist. 1 tiiink that it 



568 



OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 



is nothing less ithan the fear of executive 
power which induces us to acquiesce in 
the acquisition of territory; fear, fear, 
and nothing else. 

In the -little part which I have acted 
in public life, it has been my purpose to 
maintain the people of the United States, 
what the Constitution designed to make 
them, one people, one in interest, one in 
character, and one in political feeling. 
If we depart from that, we break it all 
up. What sympathy can there be be- 
1/ tween the people of Mexico and Califoi--. 
nia and the inhabitants of the Valley of 
the Mississippi and the Eastern States 
in the choice of a President? Do they 
know the same man ? Do they concur 
in any general constitutional principles? 
^ Not at all. 

Arbitrary governments may have ter- 
ritories and distant possessions, because 
arbitrary governments may rule them 
by different laws and different systems. 
Russia may rule in the Ukraine and the 
provinces of the Caucasus and Kamt- 
schatka by different codes, ordinances, 
or ukases. We can do no such thing. 
They must be of us, part of us, or else 
strangers. 

I think I see that in progress which 
will disfigure and deform the Constitu- 
tion. While these territories remain 
territories, they will be a trouble and an 
annoyance; they will draw after them 
vast expenses; they will probably re- 
quire as many troops as we have main- 
tained during the last twenty years to 
'' "end them against the Indian tribes. 



We must maintain an army at that im- 
mense distance. When they shall be- 
come States, they will be still more 
likely to give us trouble. 

I think I see a course adopted which 
is likely to turn the Constitution of the 
land into a deformed monster, into a 
curse rather than a blessing; in fact, 
a frame of an unequal government, not 
founded on popular representation, not 
founded on equality, but on the grossest 
inequality ; and I think that this process 
will go on, or that there is danger that 
it will go on, until this Union shall fall 
to pieces. I resist it, to-day and always ! 
Whoever falters or whoever flies, I con- 
tinue the contest! 

I know. Sir, that all the portents are 
discouraging. Would to God I could 
auspicate good influences! Would to 
God that those who think with me, and 
myself, could hope for stronger support ! 
Would that we could stand where we 
desire to stand! I see the signs are 
sinister. But with few, or alone, my 
position is fixed. If there were time, 
I would gladly awaken the country. I 
believe the country might be awakened, 
although it may be too late. For my- 
self, supported or unsupported, by the 
blessing of God, I shall do my duty. I 
see well enough all the adverse indica- 
tions. But I am sustained by a deep 
and a conscientious sense of duty; and 
while supported by that feeling, and 
while such great interests are at stake, 
I defy auguries, and ask no omen but 
my country's cause! 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE 

TERRITORIES. 

REMAKES MADE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 12th OF 

AUGUST, 18i8. 



[In the course of the first session of the 
Thirtieth Congress, a bill passed the House 
of Representatives to organize a govern- 
ment for the Territory of Oregon. This 
bill received several amendments on its 
passage through the Senate, and among 
them one moved by Mr. Douglass of Illi- 
nois, on the 10th of August, by which the 
eightli section of the law of the Gth of 
March, 1820, for the admission of Missouri, 
was revived and adopted, as a part of the 
bill, and declared to be " in full force, and 
binding, for the future organization of the 
territories of the United States, in the same 
sense and with the same understanding with 
which it was originally adopted." 

This, with some of the other amend- 
ments of the Senate, was disagreed to by 
the House. On the return of the bill to tiie 
Senate, a discussion arose, and continued 
for several days, on the question of agree- 
ment or disagreement with the amendments 
of the House to the Senate's amendments. 

The principal subject of this discussion 
was wliether the Senate would recede from 
the above-mentioned amendment moved by 
Mr. Douglass, which was finally decided in 
the aflirmative. In these discussions, a con- 
siderable portion of which was of a conver- 
sational character, Mr. Webster took a 
leading part; but of most of what was said 
by him, as by other Senators, no rejjort lias 
been preserved. The session of the Senate 
at which the last and most animated dis- 
cussion of this subject took place, nomi- 
nally on Saturday of the 12th of Ai:giist, was 
prolonged till ten o'clock, a. m., of Sunday, 
the loth. In the course of the debate on 
this day Mr. Webster spoke as follows.] 

I AM very little inclined to prolong 
this debate, and I hope I am utterly dis- 
inclined to bring into it any new warmth 
or excitement. 1 wish to say a few words, 



however, first, upon the question as it is 
presented to us, as a parliamentary ques- 
tion; and secondly, upon the general 
political questions involved in the de- 
bate. 

As a question of parliamentary pro- 
ceeding, I understand the case to be this. 
The House of Representatives sent us a 
bill for the establishment of a territorial 
government in Oregon; and no motion 
has been made in the Senate to strike 
out any part of that bill. The bill pur- 
porting to respect Oregon, simply and 
alone, has not been the subject of any 
objection in this branch of the legisla- 
ture. The Senate has proposed no im- 
portant amendment to this bill, affect- 
ing Oregon itself; and the honorable 
member from Missouri ^ was right, en- 
tirely right, when he said that the 
amendment now under consideration 
had no relation to Oregon. That is per- 
fectly true; and therefore the amend- 
ment which the Senate has adoiited, 
and the Mouse has disagreed to, has no 
connection with the immediate subject 
before it. The truth is, that it is an 
amendment by which the Senate wishes 
to have now a public, legal declaration, 
not respecting Oregon, but respecting 
the newly accjuired territories of Cali- 
fornia and New Mexico. It wishes 
now to make a line of slavery, which 
shall include those new territories. 

i Mr. Benton. 



570 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 



The amendment says that the line of 
the "Missouri Compromise" shall be 
the line to the Pacific, and then goes 
on to say, in the language of the bill as 
it now stands, that the Ordinance of 
1787 shall be applicable to Oregon ; and 
therefore I say that the amendment 
proposed is foreign to the immediate 
object of the bill. It does nothing to 
modify, restrain, or affect, in any way, 
the government which we propose to 
establish over Oregon, or the condition 
or character of that government, or of 
the people under it. In a parliamen- 
tary view, this is the state of the case. 

Now, Sir, this amendment has been 
attached to this bill by a strong major- 
ity of the Senate. That majority had 
tlie right, as it had the power, to pass 
it. The House disagreed to that amend- 
ment. If the majority of the Senate, 
who attached it to the bill, are of opin- 
ion that a conference with the House 
will lead to some adjustment of the 
question, by which this amendment, 
or something equivalent to it, may be 
adopted by the House, it is very proper 
for them to urge a conference. It is 
very fair, quite parliamentary, and 
there is not a word to be said against 
it. But my position is that of one 
who voted against the amendment, who 
thinks that it ought not to be attached 
to this bill; and therefore I naturally 
vote for the motion to get rid of it, that 
is, " to recede." 

So much for the parliamentary ques- 
tion. Now there are two or three polit- 
ical questions arising in this case, which 
I wish to state dispassionately; not to 
argue, but to state. The honorable 
member from Georgia,' for whom I 
have great respect, and with whom it 
is my delight to cultivate personal 
friendship, has stated, with great pro- 
priety, the importance of this question. 
He has said, that it is a question in- 
teresting to the South and to the North, 
and one which may vei-y well also attract 
the attention of mankind. He has not 
stated any part of this too strongly. It 
is such a question. AVithout doubt, it 
is a question which may well attract the 
1 Mr. Berrien. 



attention of mankind. On the subjects 
involved in this debate, the whole world 
is not now asleep. It is wide awake; 
and I agree with the honorable mem- 
ber, that, if what is now proposed to be 
done by us who resist this amendment 
is, as he supposes, unjust and injurious 
to any portion of this community, or 
against its constitutional rights, that 
injustice should be presented to the 
civilized world, and we, who concur in 
the proceeding, ought to submit our- 
selves to its rebuke. I am glad that the 
honorable gentleman proposes to refer 
this question to the great tribunal of 
Modern Civilization, as well as the 
great tribunal of the American People. 
It is proper. It is a question of magni- 
tude enough, of interest enough, to all 
the civilized nations of the earth, to 
call from those who support the one 
side or the other a statement of the 
grounds upon which they act. 

Now I propose to state as briefly as 
I can the grounds U2:)on which I pro- 
ceed, historical and constitutional; and 
will endeavor to use as few words as 
possible, so that I may relieve the Sen- 
ate from hearing me at the earliest 
possible moment. In the first place, 
to view the matter historically. This 
Constitution, founded in 1787, and the 
government under it, organized in 1789, 
do recognize the existence of slavery in 
certain States then belonging • to the 
Union, and a particular description of 
slavery. I hope tliat what I am about to 
say may be received without any sup- 
position that I intend the slightest dis- 
respect. But this particular description 
of slavery does not, I believe, now exist 
in Europe, nor in any other civilized 
portion of the habitable globe. It is 
not a predial slavery. It is not analo- 
gous to the case of the predial slaves, 
or slaves glehce adscripti of Russia, or 
Hungary, or other states. It is a pecu- 
liar system of personal slavery, by which 
the person who is called a slave is trans- 
ferable as a chattel, from hand to hand. 
I speak of this as a fact ; and that is the 
fact. And I will say further, perhaps 
other gentlemen may remember the in- 
stances, that although slavery, as a sys- 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 



571 



tem of servitude attached to the earth, 
exists in various countries of Europe, 
I am not at the present moment aware 
of any place on the globe in which this 
property of man in a human being as a 
slave, transferable as a chattel, exists, 
except America. Now, that it existed, 
in the form in which it still exists, in 
certain States, at the formation of this 
Constitution, and that the framers of 
that instrument, and those who adopted 
it, agreed that, as far as it existed, it 
should not be disturbed or interfered 
with by the new general government, 
there is no doubt. 

The Constitution of the United States 
recognizes it as an existing fact, an ex- 
isting relation between the inhabitants 
of the Southern States. I do not call 
it an "institution," because that term 
is not applicable to it; for that seems 
to imply a voluntary establishment. 
When I first came here, it was a matter 
of frequent reproach to England, the 
mother country, that slavery had been 
entailed upon the colonies by her, 
against their consent, and that which 
is now considered a cherished " institu- 
tion " was then regarded as, I will not 
say an evil, but an entailment on the Col- 
onies by the policy of the mother country 
against their wishes. At any rate, it 
stands upon the Constitution. The Con- 
stitution was adopted in 1788, and went 
into operation in 1789. When it was 
adopted, the state of the country was 
this: slavery existed in the Southern 
States; there was a very large extent 
of unoccupied territory, the whole 
Northwestern Territory, which, it was 
understood, was destined to be formed 
into States ; and it was then determined 
that no slavery should exist in this terri- 
tory. I gather now, as a matter of in- 
ference from the history of the time 
and the history of the debates, that the 
prevailing motives with the North for 
agreeing to this recognition of the ex- 
istence of slavery in the Southern 
States, and giving a representation to 
those States founded in part u]ion their 
slaves, rested on the supposition that 
no acquisition of territory would be 
made to form new States ou the south- 



ern frontier of this country, either by 
cession or conquest. No one looked to 
any acquisition of new territory on tlie 
southern or southwestern frontier. The 
exclusion of slavery from the North- 
western Territory and the prospective 
abolition of the foreign slave trade 
were generally, the former unani- 
mously, agreed to; and on the l)asis of 
these considerations, the South insisted 
that where slavery existed it should not 
be interfered with, and that it should 
have a certain ratio of representation 
in Congress. And now, Sir, I am one, 
who, believing such to be the under- 
standing on which the Constitution was 
framed, mean to abide by it. 

There is another principle, equally 
clear, by w'hich I mean to abide ; and 
that is, that in the Convention, and in 
the first Congress, when appealed to on 
the subject by petitions, and all along 
in the history of this government, it 
was and has been a conceded point, that 
slavery in the States in which it exists 
is a matter of State regulation exclu- 
sively, and that Congress has not the 
least power over it, or right to interfere 
with it. Therefore I say, that all agita- 
tions and attempts to disturb the rela- 
tions between master and slave, by per- 
sons not living in the slave States, are 
unconstitutional in their spirit, and are, 
in my opinion, productive of nothing 
but evil and mischief. I countenance 
none of them. The manner in which 
the governments of those States where 
slavery exists are to regulate it, is for 
their own consideration, under their re- 
sponsibility to their constituents, to the 
general laws of propriety, humanity, 
and justice, and to God. Associations 
formed elsewhere, springing from a feel- 
ing of humanity, or any other cause, 
have nothing whatever to do with it, 
nor right to interfere with it. They 
have never received any encouragement 
from me, and they never will. In my 
opinion, they have done nothing but 
delay and defeat their own professed 
objects. 

I have now stated, as I understand it, 
the condition of things upon Ihe adop- 
tion of the Constitution of the United 



572 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 



States. What has happened since? 
Sir, it has happened that, above and be- 
yond all contemplation or expectation 
of the original framers of the Constitu- 
tion, or the people who adopted it, for- 
eign territory has been acquired by 
cession, first from France, and then 
from Spain, on our southern frontier. 
And what has been the result? Five 
slave-holding States have been created 
and added to the Union, bringing ten 
Senators into this body, (I include 
Texas, which I consider in the light of 
a foreign acquisition also,) and up to 
this hour in which I address you, not 
one free State has been admitted to the 
Union from all this acquired territory ! 

Mr. Berrien (in his seat). Yes, Iowa. 

Iowa is not yet in the Union. Her 
Senators are not here. When she comes 
in, there will be one to five, one free 
State to five slave States, formed out of 
new territories. Now, it seems strange 
to me that there should be any com- 
plaint of injustice exercised by the North 
towar(i the South. Northern votes have 
been necessary, they have been ready, 
and they have been given, to aid in the 
admission of these five new slave-holding 
States. These are facts ; and as the gen- 
tleman from Georgia has very properly 
put it as a case in which we are to pre- 
sent ourselves before the world for its 
judgment, let us now see how we stand. 
I do not represent the North. I state 
my own case; and I present the matter 
in that light in which I am willing, as 
an individual member of Congress, to be 
judged by civilized humanity. I say 
then, that, according to true history, the 
slave-holding interest in this country 
has not been a disfavored interest; it 
has not been disfavored by the North. 
The North has concurred to bring in 
these five slave-holding States out of 
newly acquired territory, which acquisi- 
tions were not at all in the contempla- 
tion of the Convention which formed the 
Constitution, or of the people when they 
agreed that there should be a represen- 
tation of three fifths of the slaves in the 
then existing States. 

Mr. President, what is the result of 



this ? We stand here now, at least I do, 
for one, to say, that, considering there 
have been already five new slave-holding 
States formed out of newly acquired ter- 
ritory, and only one non-slave-holding 
State, at most, I do not feel that I am 
called on to go further; I do not feel the 
obligation to yield more. But our friends 
of the South say. You deprive us of 
all our rights. We have fought for this 
territory, and you deny us participation 
in it. Let us consider this question as 
it really is; and since the honorable gen- 
tleman from Georgia proposes to leave 
the case to the enlightened and impartial 
judgment of mankind, and as I agree 
with him that it is a case proper to be 
considered by the enlightened part of 
mankind, let us see how the matter in 
truth stands. Gentlemen who advocate 
the case which my honorable friend from 
Georgia, with so much ability, sustains, 
declai'e that we invade their rights, that 
we deprive them of a participation in the 
enjoyment of territories acquired by the 
common services and common exertions 
of all. Is this true? How deprive? Of 
what do we deprive them ? Why, they 
say that we deprive them of the privi- 
lege of carrying their slaves, as slaves, 
into the new territories. Well, Sir, what 
is the amount of that? They say that 
in this way we deprive them of the 
opportunity of going into this acquired 
territory with their property. Their 
"property"? What do they mean by 
" property " ? We certainly do not de- 
prive them of the privilege of going into 
these newly acquired territories with all 
that, in the general estimate of human 
society, in the general, and common, and 
universal understanding of mankind, is 
esteemed property. Not at all. The 
truth is just this. They have, in their 
own States, peculiar laws, which create 
property in persons. They have a sys- 
tem of local legislation on which slavery 
rests ; while everybody agrees that it is 
against natural law, or at least against 
the common understanding which pre- 
vails among men as to what is natural 
law. 

I am not going into metaphysics, for 
therein I should encounter the honora- 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVEUY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 



573 



ble member from South Carolina,^ and 
•we should find "no end, in wandering 
mazes lost," until after the time for the 
adjournment of Congress. The Soutiiern 
States have peculiar laws, and by those 
laws there is property in slaves. This 
is jmrely local. Tiie real meaning, then, 
of Southern gentlemen, in making this 
conijilaint, is, that they cannot go into 
the territories of the United States car- 
rying with them their own peculiar local 
law, a law which creates property in per- 
sons. This, according to their own 
statement, is all the ground of complaint 
they have. Now here, I think, gentle- 
men are unjust towards us. How un- 
just they are, otiiers will judge; genera- 
tions that will come after us will judge. 
It will not be contended that this sort of 
personal slavery exists by general law. 
It exists only by local law. I do not 
mean to deny the validity of that local 
law where it is established; but 1 say it 
is, after all, local law. It is nothing 
more. And wherever that local law does 
not extend, property in persons does not 
exist. Well, Sir, what is now the de- 
mand on the part of our Southern friends ? 
They say, " We will carry our local 
laws with us wherever we go. We in- 
sist that Congress does us injustice un- 
less it establishes in the territory in 
which we wish to go our own local law." 
This demand I for one resist, and shall 
resist. Tt gdcs upon the idea that there 
is an inpfpiality, unless persons under 
this local law, and holding property by 
authority of that law, can go into new 
territory and there establish that local 
law, to the exclusion of the general law. 
Mr. President, it was a maxim of the 
civil law, that, between slavery and 
freedom, freedom should always be pre- 
sumed, and slavery must always be 
])roved. If any question arose as to the 
status of an individual in Rome, he was 
presumed to be free until he was jiroved 
to be a slave, because slavery is an ex- 
ception to the general rule. Such, I 
suppose, is the general law of mankind. 
An individual is to be presumed to be 
free, until a law can be produced which 
creates ownership in his person. I do 
1 Mr. Calhoun. 



not dispute the force and validity of the 
local law, as I have already said; but I 
say, it is a matter to be proved; and 
therefore, if individuals go into any part 
of the earth, it is to be proved that they 
are not freemen, or else the presumption 
is that they are. 

Now our friends seem to think that an 
inequality arises from restraining them 
from going into the territories, uidess 
there be a law provided which shall pro- 
tect their ownership in persons. The 
assertion is, that we create an inequality. 
Is there notiiing to be said on the other 
side in relation to inequality? Sir, from 
the date of this Constitution, and in the 
counsels that formed and estahlished 
this Constitution, and 1 suppose in all 
men's judgment since, it is received as 
a settled truth, that slave labor and free 
labor do not exist well together. I have 
before me a declaration of Mr. Mason, 
in the Convention that formed the Con- 
stitution, to that effect. I\Ir. Mason, as 
is well known, was a distinguished mem- 
ber from Virginia. lie says that the 
objection to slave labor is, that it puts 
free white labor in disrepute; that it 
causes labor to be regarded as deroga- 
tory to the character of the free white 
man, and that the free white man de- 
spises to woi'k, to use his expression, 
where slaves are ejnployed. This is a 
matter of great interest to the free States, 
if it l)e true, as to a great extent it cer- 
tainly is, that wherever slave labor pre- 
vails free white labor is excluded or dis- 
couraged. I agree that slave labor does 
not necessarily exclude free labor totally. 
There is free white labor in Virginia, 
Tennessee, and other States, where most 
of the labor is done by slaves. But it 
necessarily loses something of its re- 
spectability, by the side of, and when 
associated with, slave labor. Wherever 
labor is mainly performed by slaves, it 
is regarded as degrading to freemen. 
The freemen of the North, therefore, 
have a deep interest in keeping labor 
free, exclusively free, in the new terri- 
tories. 

I5ut, Sir, let us look further into this 
alleged inequality. There is no pre- 
tence tiiat Southern people may not go 



674 



EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 



into territory which shall be subject to 
the Ordinance of 1787. The only re- 
straint is, that they shall not carry slaves 
thither, and continue that relation. 
They say this shuts them altogether out. 
Why, Sir, there can be nothing more 
inaccurate in point of fact than this 
statement. I understand that one half 
the people who settled Illinois are peo- 
ple, or descendants of people, who came 
from the Southern States. And I sup- 
pose that one third of the people of Ohio 
are those, or descendants of those, who 
emigrated from the South ; and I ven- 
ture to say, that, in respect to those two 
States, they are at this day settled by 
people of Southern origin in as great a 
proportion as they are by people of 
Northern origin, according to the gen- 
eral numbers and proportion of people, 
South and North. There are as many 
people from the South, in proportion to 
the whole people of the South, in those 
States, as thei'e are from the North, in 
proportion to the whole people of the 
North. There is, then, no exclusion of 
Southern people ; there is only the ex- 
clusion of a peculiar local law. Neither 
in principle nor in fact is there any in- 
equality. 

The question now is, whether it is not 
competent to Congress, in the exercise 
of a fair and just discretion, considering 
that there have been five slave-holding 
States added to this Union out of foreign 
acquisitions, and as yet only one free 
State, to prevent their further increase. 
That is the question. I see no injustice 
in it. As to the power of Congress, I 
have nothing to add to what I said the 
other day. Congress has full power over 
the subject. It may establish any such 
government, and any such laws, in the 
territories, as in its discretion it may see 
fit. It is subject, of course, to the rules 
of justice and propriety; but it is under 
no constitutional restraints. 

I have said that I shall consent to no 
extension of the area of slavery upon 
this continent, nor to any increase of 
slave representation in the other house 
of Congress. I have now stated my rea- 
sons for my conduct and my vote. "We 



of the North have already gone, in this 
respect, far beyond all that any South- 
ern man could have expected, or did ex- 
pect, at the time of the adoption of the 
Constitution. I repeat the statement of 
the fact of the creation of five new slave- 
holding States out of newly acquired 
territory. We have done that which, if 
those who framed the Constitution had 
foreseen, they never would have agreed 
to slave representation. We have yielded 
tlms far ; and we have now in the House 
of Representatives twenty persons vot- 
ing upon this very question, and upon 
all other questions, who are there only 
in virtue of the representation of slaves. 
Let me conclude, therefore, by re- 
marking, that, w^hile I am willing to 
present this as showing my own judg- 
ment and position, in regard to this 
case, and I beg it to be understood that 
I am speaking for no other than myself, 
and while I am willing to offer it to the 
whole world as my own justification, I 
I'est on these propositions: First, That 
when this Constitution was adopted, 
nobody looked for any new acquisition 
of territory to be formed into slave-hold- 
ing States. Secondly, That the princi- 
ples of the Constitution prohibited, and 
were intended to prohibit, and should be 
construed to prohibit, all interference of 
the general government with slavery as 
it existed and as it still exists in the 
States. And then, looking to the oper- 
ation of these new acquisitions, which 
have in this great degree had the effect 
of strengthening that interest in the 
South by the addition of these five 
States, I feel that there is nothing un- 
just, nothing of which any honest man 
can complain, if he is intelligent, and I 
feel that there is nothing with which the 
civilized world, if they take notice of so 
humble a person as myself, will reproach 
me, when I say, as I said the other day, 
that I have made up my mind, for one, 
that under no circumstances will I con- 
sent to the further extension of the 
area of slavery in the United States, 
or to the further increase of slave repre- 
sentation in the House of Representa- 
tives. 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 

DELIVERED AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF MARSHFIELD, MASS., ON 

THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER, 1848. 



[The following correspondence explains 
the occasion of tiie meeting at Marslifield, 
at wliich the following speech was deliv- 
ered. 

" Marshfeld, Mass., Aug. 2, 1848. 

" Hon. Da KIEL Webster: — 

"Dear Sir, — The undersigned, Whigs and 
fellow-citizens of yours, are desirous of seeing 
and conferring with 3'ou on the subject of our 
national policy, and of hearing your opinions 
freelv expressed tiiereon. We look anxiously 
on the present aspect of public affairs, and on 
the position in wliich the Whig party, and espe- 
cially Northern Whigs, are now placed. We 
should be grieved indeed to see General Cass — 
so decided an opponent of all those measures 
which we think essential to the honor and inter- 
ests of the country and the prosperity of all 
classes — elected to the chief magistracy. On 
the other hand, it is not to be concealed, that 
there is much discontent with the nomination 
made by the late I'hiladelphia Convention, of a 
Southern man, a military nuin, fresh from bloody 
fields, and known only by his sword, as a Whig 
candidate for the Presidency. 

" So far as is in our humble aliility, we desire 
to preserve the LTnion and the Whig party, and 
to perpetuate Whig principles ; but we wish to 
see also that these principles maj' be preserved, 
and this Union perpetuated, in a manner consist- 
ent with the rights of the Free States, aiul the 
prevention of the farther extension of the slave 
power; and we dread the effects of the prece- 
dent, which we think eminently dangerous, and 
as not exhibiting us in a favorable lii^bt to the 
nations ot the earth, of elevating a mere military 
man to the Presidency. 

" We think a crisis is upon us ; and we would 
gladly know how we may best discharge our 
(liities as true Americans, honest men, and good 
Whi^s. To you, who have been so long in pul)- 
lic life, and are able from your great experience 
and unrivalled ability to" give us information 
and advice, and uiion whom, as neii;ldj()rs and 
friends, we think we have some claims, we mit- 
urally h)ok, and we should be exceedingly grat- 
ified if, in anyway, ptd)lic or private, you would 
express your opinion upon interesting ])ul)lic 
questions now ]icnding, with that boldness and 
distinctness with which you are accustomed to 
declare your sentiments. It vou can concur 



with our wishes, please signify to us in what 
manner it would be most agreeable to you that 
they should be carried into effect. 

"With very great regard, your obedient ser- 
vants, 

"Daniel Piiii.lii's, 
Ge(>k(;e I.konahd, 

Geo. H. WKrilEHKEE, 

and many others." 

To this invitation Mr. Webster returned 
the following reply : — 

" Mamhfdil Au(/. 3, 1848. 

" Gentlemen, — I have received your letter. 
The critical state of things at Washini;ton obliges 
mc to think it my duty to repair thither imme- 
diately and takeiny seat in the Senate, notwith- 
standing the state of my health and the heat of 
the weather render it disagreeable for me to leave 
home. 

" I cannot, therefore, comply with your wishes 
at present; but on my return, if such should 
continue to be your desire, I will meet y<iu and 
the other Whigs of Marshtield. in an unceremo- 
nious numner, that we may confer upon the top- 
ics to which your letter relates. 

"I am. Gentlemen, with esteem ami friend- 
ship, 

" Your obliged fellow-c-iti/.en, 

'■ Daniel Wehstek. 

" To Messrs. Daniel Piiii.Lirs, (iKonoE Leon- 
AKD, Geo. H. Wetiiekbke, and others. 

Soon after Mr. Webster's retnni from 
Washington, it was nrraiigt-d that the meet- 
ing should take place at the " Wiiislow 
House," the ancient seat of the Wiiislow 
family, now forming a jiart of Mr. Web- 
ster's farm at Marslifield, on Frithiy, the 
first day of September.) 

Ai.THOUOii it i.s not my purpose, dur- 
ing the present recess of Congress, 
frequently to a(idres.s pulilic axssenibliea 
on political sul)jfcts, I liave felt it my 
duty to comply with your recjuest, as 
neiglibors and townsmen, and to meet 
you to-day; and I am not unwiiiing to 



576 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



avail myself of this occasion to signify 
to the people of the United States my 
opinions upon the present state of our 
public affairs. I shall perform that 
duty, certainly with great frankness, I 
hope with candor. It is not my inten- 
tion to-day to endeavor to carry any 
point, to act as any man's advocate, to 
put up or put down anybody. I wish, 
and I propose, to address you in the lan- 
guage and in the spirit of conference and 
consultation. In the present extraordi- 
nary crisis of our public concerns, I de- 
sire to hold no man's conscience but my 
own. My own opinions 1 shall commu- 
nicate, freely and fearlessly, with equal 
disregard to consequences, whether they 
respect myself or respect others. 

We are on the eve of a highly impor- 
tant Pi-esidential election. In two or 
three months the people of this country 
will be called upon to elect an executive 
chief magistrate of the United States; 
and all see, and all feel, that great in- 
terests of the country are to be affected, 
for good or evil, by the results of that 
election. Of the interesting subjects 
over which the person who shall be 
elected must necessarily exercise more 
or less control, there are especially three, 
vitally connected, in my judgment, with 
the honor and happiness of the country. 
In the first place, the honor and happi- 
ness of the country imperatively require 
that there shall be a chief magistrate 
elected who shall not plunge us into 
further wars of ambition and conqiiest. 
In the second place, in my judgment, 
the interests of the country and the feel- 
ing of a vast majority of the people 
require that a President of these United 
States should be elected, who will nei- 
ther use official influence to promote, 
nor feel any desire in his heart to pro- 
mote, the further extension of slavery 
in this community, or its further influ- 
ence in the public councils. In the third 
place, if I have any just estimate, if an 
experience not now a shoi't one in public 
affairs has enabled me to know any thing 
of what the public interest demands, the 
state of the country requires an essential 
reform in the system of revenue and 
finance, such as shall restore the pros- 



perity, by prompting the industiy and 
fostering the labor of the country, in its 
various branches. There ai-e other 
things important, but I will not allude 
to them. These three I hold to be 
essential. 

There are three candidates presented 1 
to the choice of the American people. 
General Taylor is the AVhig candidate, 
standing upon the nomination of the 
Whig Convention ; General Cass is the 
candidate of the opposing and now 
dominant party in the country; and a 
third candidate is presented in the per- 
son of Mr. Van Buren, by a convention 
of citizens assembled at Buffalo, whose 
object, or whose main object, as it ap- 
pears to me, is contained in one of those 
considerations which I have mentioned; 
and that is, the prevention of the fur- 
ther increase of slavery; — an object in 
which you and I, Gentlemen, so far as 
that goes, entirely concur with them, I 
am sure. 

Most of us who are here to-day are 
Whigs, l^ational Whigs, Massachusetts 
Whigs, Old Colony AVhigs, and Marsh- 
field Whigs, and if the Wliig nomina- 
tion made at Pliiladelphia were entirely 
satisfactory to the people of Massa- 
chusetts and to us, our path of duty 
would be plain. But the nomination of 
a candidate for the Presidency made by 
the Whig Convention at Philadelphia is 
not satisfactory to the Whigs of Massa- 
chusetts. That is certain, and it would 
be idle to attempt to conceal the fact. 
It is more just and more patriotic, it 
is more manly and practical, to take 
facts as they are, and things as they 
are, and to deduce our own convic- 
tion of duty from what exists before 
us. However respectable and distin- 
guished in the line of his own profes- 
sion, or however estimable as a private 
citizen. General Taylor is a military 
man, and a military man merely. He 
has had no training in civil affairs. He 
has performed no functions of a civil 
nature under the Constitution of his 
country. He has been known and is 
known, only by his brilliant achieve- 
ments at the head of an army. A^ow 
the Whigs of jMassachusetts, and I 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



577 



among thera, are of opinion that it was 
not wise, nor discreet, to go to the army 
for the selection of a candidate for the 
Presidency of the United States. It is 
the first instance in their history in 
wliich any man of mere military char- 
acter has been proposed for that high 
office. General Washington was a great 
military character; but by far a greater 
civil character. He had been employed 
in the councils of his country, from the 
earliest dawn of the Revolution. lie 
had been in the Continental Congress, 
and he had established a great character 
for civil wisdom and judgment. After 
the war, as you know, he was elected a 
member of that convention W'liich formed 
the Constitution of the United States; 
and it is one of the most honorable 
tributes ever paid to him, that by that 
assembly of good and wise men he was 
selected to preside over their delibera- 
tions. And he put his name first and 
foremost to the Constitution under which 
we live. President Harrison was bred 
a soldier, and at different periods of his 
life rendered important military services. 
But President Harrison, nevertheless, 
was for a much greater period of his 
life employed in civil than in militaiy 
service. For twenty years he was either 
governor of a Territoiy, member of one 
or the other house of Congress, or minis- 
ter abroad; and discharged all these 
duties to the satisfaction of his country. 
Tills case, therefore, stands by itself; 
without a precedent or justification from 
any thing in our previous history. It is 
for this reason, as I imagine, that the 
Whigs of Massachusetts feel dissatis- 
fied with this nomination. There may 
be other reasons, there are others; they 
are, perhaps, of less importance, and 
more easily to be answered. But tliis 
is a well-founded objection; and in my 
opinion it ought to have prevailed, and 
to have prevented this nomination. I 
know enough of history to see the dan- 
gerous tendency of such resorts to mili- 
tary popularity. 

But, if I nuiy borrow a mercantile ex- 
pression, I may now venture to say, that 
there is another side to this account. 
The impartiality with which I propose 



37 



to discharge my duty to-day requires 
that it should be stated. And, in the 
first place, it is to be considered, that 
General Taylor has been nominated by 
a Whig convention, held in conformity 
with the usages of the Whig party, and, 
so far as 1 know, fairly nominated. It 
is to be considered, also, that he is the 
only Whig before the people, as a candi- 
date for the Presidency; and no citizen 
of the countrj-, with any effect, can vote 
for any other Whig, let his preferences 
be what they might or may. 

In the next place, it is proper to con- 
sider the personal character of General 
Taylor, and his political opinions, rela- 
tions, and connections, so far as they are 
known. In advancing to a few observa- 
tions on this part of the case, I wish 
everybody to understand that I have 
no personal acquaintance whatever with 
General Taylor. I never saw him but 
once, and that but for a few moments in 
the Senate. The sources of informa- 
tion are open to you, as well as to me, 
from which I derive what I know of his 
character and opinions. But I have 
endeavored to obtain access to those 
sources. I have endeavored to inform 
and instruct myself by communication 
with those who have known him in his 
profession as a soldier, in his associa- 
tions as a man, in his conversations and 
opinions on political subjects; and I will 
tell you frankly what I think of him, 
according to the best lights which I have 
been able to obtain, 

I need not say, that he is a skilful, 
brave, and gallant soldier. That is ad- 
mitted by all. With me, all that goes 
but very little way to make out the 
proper qualifications for President of 
the United States. But what is more 
important, I believe that he is an entirely 
honest and upright man. I believe that 
he is modest, clear-headed, of indepen- 
dent and manly character, possessing a 
mind trained by proper discipline and 
self-control. I believe that he is esti- 
mable and amiable in all tiie relations of 
private life. 1 believe that he possesses 
a reputation for equity and fair judg- 
ment, which gives him an influence over 
those under his command beyond what 



6Y8 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



is conferred by the authority of station. 
I believe that he is a man possessing the 
confidence and attachment of all who 
have been near him and know him. 
And I believe, that, if elected President, 
he will do his best to relieve the country 
from present evils, and guard it against 
future dangers. So much for what I 
think of the personal character of Gen- 
eral Taylor. 

I will say, too, that, so far as I have 
observed, his conduct since he has been 
a candidate for the office of President 
has been irreproachable. I hear no in- 
trigue imputed to him, no contumelious 
treatment of rivals. I do not find him 
making promises' or holding out hopes 
to any men or any party. I do not find 
him putting forth any pretensions of his 
own, and therefore I think of him very 
much as he seems to think of himself, 
that he is an honest man, of an inde- 
pendent mind and of upright intentions. 
And as for the subject of his qualifica- 
tions for the Presidency, he has himself 
nothing to say about it. 

And now, friends and fellow-towns- 
men, with respect to his political opin- 
ions and relations, I can say at once, 
that I believe him to be a Whig ; I be- 
lieve him to hold to the main doctrines 
of the Whig party. To think otherwise 
would be to impute to him a degree of 
tergiversation and fraudulent deception 
of which I suppose him to be entirely 
incapable. 

Gentlemen, it is worth our while to 
consider in what manner General Taylor 
has become a candidate for the Presi- 
dency of the United States. It would 
be a great mistake to suppose that he 
was made such merely by the nomination 
of the Philadelphia Convention. He had 
been nominated for the Presidency in a 
great many States, by various conven- 
tions and meetings of the people, a year 
before the convention at Philadelphia 
assembled. The whole history of the 
world shows, whether in the most civil- 
ized or the most barbarous ages, that the 
affections and admiration of mankind 
are at all times easily carried away to- 
wards successful military achievements. 
The story of all republics and of all free 



governments shows this. W^e know in 
the case now before us, that so soon as 
brilliant success had attended General 
Taylor's operations on the Rio Grande, 
at Palo Alto, and Monterey, spontane- 
ous nominations of him sprang up. 

And here let me say, that, generally, 
these were Whig nominations. Not uni- 
versally, but generally, these nomina- 
tions, made at various times before the 
meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, 
were Whig nominations. General Tay- 
lor was esteemed, from the moment that 
his military achievements brought him 
into public notice, as a Whig general. 
You all remember, that when we were 
discussing his merits in Congress, upon 
the question of giving thanks to the 
army under his command, and to him- 
self, among other objections, the friends 
and supporters of Mr. Polk's adminis- 
tration denomiced him as being, and be- 
cause he was, a Whig general. My 
friends near me, whom I am happy to 
see here, belonging to the House of Rep- 
resentatives, will remember that a lead- 
ing man of the party of the administra- 
tion declared in his place in Congress, 
that the policy of the administration, 
connected with the Mexican war, would 
never prosper, till the President recalled 
those Whig generals, Scott and Taylor. 
The policy was a Democratic policy. 
The argument was, that the men to 
carry out this policy should be Demo- 
cratic men; the officers to fight the 
battles should be Democratic officers; 
and on that ground, the ordinary vote of 
thanks was refused to General Taylor, 
on the part of the friends of the admin- 
istration. 

Let me remark, in the next place, 
that there was no particular purpose con- 
nected with the advancement of slavery 
entertained, generally, by those who 
nominated him. As I have said, they 
were Whig nominations, more in the 
Middle and Northern than in the South- 
ern States, and by persons who never 
entertained the slightest desire, by his 
nomination, or by any other means, to 
extend the area of slavery of the human 
race, or the influence of the slave-holding 
States in the councils of the nation. 



SrEFXII AT MAUSIIFIELD. 



679 



The Quaker city of Philadelphia nomi- 
nated General Taylor, the Whigs all 
over the Union nominated him, with no 
such view. A great convention was as- 
sembled in Xew York, of highly influ- 
ential and respectable gentlemen, very 
many of them well known to me, and 
they nominated General Taylor with no 
such view. General Taylor's nomina- 
tion was hailed, not very .extensively, 
but by some enthusiastic and not very 
far-seeing people in the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts. There were, even 
among us, in our own State, Whigs 
quite early enough, certainly, in mani- 
festing their confidence in this nomina- 
tion; a little too early, it may be, in 
uttering notes of exultation for the an- 
ticipated triumph. It would have been 
better if they had waited. 

Now the truth is, Gentlemen, —and 
no man can avoid seeing it, unless, as 
sometimes happens, the object is too 
near our eyes to be distinctly discerned, 
— the truth is, that in these nomina- 
tions, and also in the nomination at 
Philadelphia, in these conventions, and 
also in the convention at Philadelphia, 
General Taylor was nominated exactly 
for this reason; — that, believing him to 
be a Whig, they thought he could be 
chosen more easily than any other Whig. 
This is the whole of it. That saga- 
cious, wise, far-seeing doctrine of avail- 
ability lies at the bottom of the whole 
matter. So far, then, from imputing 
any motive to these conventions over 
the country, or to the convention in 
Philadelphia, as operating on a major- 
ity of the members, to promote slavery 
by the nomination of General Taylor, 
I do not believe a word of it, — not one 
■word. I see that one part of what is 
called the Platform of the Buffalo Con- 
vention says that the candidates before 
the public were nominated under the 
dictation of the slave power. I do not 
believe a word of it. 

In the first place, a very great majority 
of the convention at Philadelphia was 
composed of members from the Free 
States. By a very great majority they 
might have nominated anybody they 
chose. But the Free States did not 



choose to nominate a Free State man, or 
a Northern man. Even our neighbors, 
the States of New England, w*th the 
exception of New Hampshire and a 
part of Maine, neither proposed nor 
concurred in the nomination of any 
Northern man. Vermont would hear of 
nothing but the nomination of a South- 
ern and slave-holding candidate. Con- 
necticut was of the same mind, and so 
was Rhode Island. The North made no 
demand, nor presented any request for a 
Northern candidate, nor attempted any 
union among themselves for the purpose 
of promoting the nomination of such a 
candidate. They were content to take 
their choice among the candidates of the 
South. It is preposterous, therefore, to 
pretend that a candidate from the Slave 
States has been forced upon the North 
by Southern dictation. 

In the next place, it is true that there 
were persons from New England who 
were extremely zealous and active in pro- 
cm-ing the nomination of General Tay- 
lor, but they were men who would cut 
off their right hands before they w'ould 
do any thing to promote slavery in the 
United States. I do not admire their 
policy ; indeed I have very little respect 
for it, understand that; but I acquit 
them of bad motives. I know the lead- 
ing men in that convention. I think I 
understand the motives that governed 
them. Their reasoning was this: ''Gen- 
eral Taylor is a Whig; not eminent in 
civil life, not known in civil life, but 
still a man of sound Whig principles. 
Cii'cumstances have given him a reputa- 
tion and edat in the country. If he shall 
l)e the ^^'hig candidate, he will be 
chosen; and with him there will come 
into the two houses of Congress an 
augnu'utation of Whig strength. The 
\\'liig majority in the House of Repre- 
sentatives will be increased. The Demo- 
cratic majority in the Senate will be 
diminished. That was the view, and 
such was the motive, however wise or 
however unwise, that governed a very 
large majority of those who composed 
the convention at Philadelphia. In 
my opinion, this was a wholly unwise 
policy ; it was short-sighted and tempor- 



680 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



izing on questions of great principles. 
But I acquit those who adopted it of any 
such motives as have been ascribed to 
them, and especially of what has been 
ascribed to them in a part of this Buif alo 
Platform. 

Such, Gentlemen, are the circum- 
stances connected with the nomination 
of General Taylor. I only repeat, that 
those who had the greatest agency origi- 
nally in bringing him before the people 
were Whig conventions and Whig meet- 
ings in the several States, Free States, 
and that a great majority of that con- 
vention which nominated him in Phila^ 
delphia was from the Free States, and 
might have rejected him if they had 
chosen, and selected anybody else on 
whom they could have united. 

This is the case, Gentlemen, as far as 
I can discern it, and exercising upon it 
as impartial a judgTnent as I can form, 
— this is the case presented to the Whigs, 
so far as respects the personal fitness 
and personal character of General Tay- 
lor, and the circumstances which have 
caused his nomination. If we were 
weighing the propriety of nominating 
such a person to the Presidency, it would 
be one thing; if we are considering the 
expediency, or I may say the necessity 
(which to some minds may seem to be 
the case), of well-meaning and patriotic 
Whigs supporting him after he is nom- 
inated, that is quite another thing. 

This leads us to the consideration of 
what the Whigs of Massachusetts are to 
do, or such of them as do not see fit to 
support General Taylor. Of course they 
must vote for General Cass, or they must 
vote for Mr. Van Buren, or they must 
omit to vote at all. I agree that there 
are cases in which, if we do not know in 
what direction to move, we ought to 
stand still till we do. I admit that 
there are cases in which, if one does not 
know what to do, he had better not do 
he knows not what. But on a question 
so important to ourselves and the coun- 
try, on a question of a poiKxlar election 
under constitutional forms, in which it 
is impossible that every man's private 
judgment can prevail, or every man's 
private choice succeed, it becomes a 



question of conscientious duty and pa- 
triotism, what it is best to do upon the 
whole. 

Under the practical administration of 
the Constitution of the United States, 
there cannot be a great range of personal 
choice in regard to the candidate for the 
Presidency. In order that their votes 
may be effecti\'e, men must give them 
for some one of those who are promi- 
nently before the public. This is the 
necessary result of our forms of govern- 
ment and of the provisions of the Con- 
stitution. The people are therefore 
brouglit sometimes to the necessity of 
choosing between candidates neither of 
whom would be their original, personal 
choice. 

Now, what is the contingency? What 
is tlie alternative presented to tlie Whigs 
of Massachusetts'? In my judgment, 
fellow-citizens, it is simply this; the 
question is between General Taylor and 
General Cass. And that is the only 
question. I am no more skilled to 
foresee political occurrences than others. 
I judge only for myself. But, in my 
opinion, there is not the least proba- 
bility of any other result than the choice 
of General Taylor or General Cass. I 
know that the enthusiasm of a new- 
formed party, that the popularity of a 
new-formed name, without communicat- 
ing any new-formed idea, may lead men 
to think that the sky is to fall, and that 
larks are suddenly to be taken. I enter- 
tain no such expectations. I speak with- 
out disrespect of the Free Soil party. I 
have read their platform, and though I 
think there are some unsound places in 
it, I can stand on it pretty well. But I 
see nothing in it both new and valuable. 
" What is valuable is not new, and what 
is new is not valuable." If the term 
Free Soil party, or Free Soil men, desig- 
nate those who are fixed, and unalter- 
ably fixed, in favor of the restriction of 
slavery, are so to-day and were so yes-' 
terday, and have been so for some time, , 
then I hold myself to be as good a Free 
Soil man as any of the Buffalo Conven- 
tion. I pray to know who is to put be- 
neath my feet a freer soil than that upon 
which I have stood ever since I have been 



SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 



i81 



in public life? I pray to know who is 
to make my lips freer than they always 
have been, or to inspire into my breast 
a more resolute and fixed detenniimtion 
to I'esist the advances and encroachments 
of the slave power, than has inhabited it 
since I for the first time opened my 
mouth in the councils of the country? 
The gentlemen at Buffalo have placed 
at the head of their party Mr. Van 
Buren, a gentleman for whom I have all 
the respect that I ought to entertain for 
one with whom I have been associated, 
in some degree, in public life for many 
years, and who has held the highest otii- 
ces in the country. But really, speaking 
for myself, if I were to express confi- 
dence in Mr. Van Buren and his politics 
on any question, and most especially this 
very question of slavery, I think the scene 
would border upon the ludicrous, if not 
upon the contemptible. I never pro- 
posed any thing in my life of a general 
and public nature, that Mr. Van Buren 
did not oppose. Nor has it happened to 
me to support any important measure 
proposed by him. If he and I now were 
to find ourselves together under the Free 
Soil flag, I am sure that, with his accus- 
tomed good nature, he would laugh. If 
nobody were present, we should both 
laugh at the strange occurrences and 
stranger jumbles of political life that 
should have brought us to sit down 
cosily and snugly, side by side, on the 
same platform. That the leader of the 
Free Spoil party should so suddenly have 
become the leader of the Free Soil party 
would be a joke to shake his sides and 
mine. 

Gentlemen, my first acquaintance in 
public life with Mr. Van Buren was 
when he was pressing with gi-eat power 
the election of Mr. Crawford to the 
Presidency, against Mr. Adams. Mr. 
Crawford was not elected, and Mr. 
Adams was. Mr. Van Buren was in 
the Senate nearly the whole of that ad- 
ministration; and during the remainder 
of it he was Governor of the State of 
New York. It is notorious that he was 
the soul and centre, throughout the whole 
of Mr. Adams's term, of the opposition 
made to him. He did more to prevent 



Mr. Adams's re-election in 182S, and to 
obtain General Jackson's election, tlian 
any other man, — yes, than any ten other 
men in the country. 

General Jackson was chosen, and Mr. 
Van Buren was appointed his Secretary 
of State. It so happened that in July, 
1829, Mr. McLane went to Englitnd to 
arrange the controverted, difficult, and 
disputed point on the subject of the 
colonial trade. Mr. Adams had held a 
high tone on that subject, lie had de- 
manded, on the ground of reciprocity 
and right, the introduction of our prod- 
ucts into all parts of the British terri- 
tory, freely, in our own vessels, since 
Great Britain was allowed to briijg her 
produce into the United States upon the 
same terms. Mr. Adams placed this de- 
m'and upon the ground of reciprocity and 
justice. Great Britain would not yield. 
Mr. Van Buren, in his instructions to 
Mr. McLane, told him to yield that 
question of right, and to solicit the free 
admission of American produce into the 
British colonies, on the ground of privi- 
lege and favor; intimating that there 
had been a change of parties, and that 
this favor ought not to be refused to 
General Jackson's administration be- 
cause it had been denumded on the 
ground of right by Mr. Adams's. This 
is the sum and substance of the instruc- 
tion. 

Well, Gentlemen, it was one of the 
most painful duties of my life, on ac- 
count of this, to refuse my assent to Mr. 
Van Buren's nominatio^i. It. was novel 
in our history, when an administration 
changes, for the new administration to 
seek to obtain privileges from a foreign 
power on the assertion that they have 
abandoned the gi-ound of their predeces- 
sors. I suppose that such a course is 
held to be altogether undignified by all 
public men. When I went into the De- 
partment of State under General Harri- 
son, I found in the conduct of my preile- 
cessor many things that I could have 
wished had been otherwi.se. Did I re- 
tract a jot or tittle of what Mr. Forsyth 
had said? I took the case as he had left 
it, and conducted it upon the principles 
which he left. I should have considered 



582 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



that I disgraced myself if I had said, 
" Pray, my Lord Ashburton, we are 
more rational persons than our prede- 
cessors, we are more considerate than 
they, and intend to adopt an entirely 
opposite policy. Consider, my dear 
Lord, how much more friendly, reason- 
able, and amiable we are than our pre- 
decessors." 

But now, on this very subject of the 
extension of the slave power, I would 
by no means do the least injustice to 
Mr. Van Buren. If he has come up to 
some of the opinions expressed in the 
platform of the Buffalo Convention, I 
am very glad of it. I do not mean to 
say that there may not be very good rea- 
sons for those of his own party who can- 
not conscientiously vote for General Cass 
to vote for him, because I think him 
much the least dangerous of the two. 
But, in truth, looking at Mr. Van Bu- 
ren's conduct as President of the United 
States, I am amazed to find that he 
should be placed at the head of a party 
professing to be, beyond all other pai'- 
ties, friends of liberty and enemies of 
African slavery in the Southern States. 
Why, the very first thing that Mr. Van 
Buren did after he was President was to 
declare, that, if Congress interfered with 
slavery in the District of Columbia, he 
would apply the veto to their bills. Mr. 
Van Buren, in his inaugural address, 
quotes the following expression from 
his letter accepting his nomination: "I 
must go into the Presidential chair the 
inflexible and uncompromising opponent 
of every attempt on the part of Con- 
gress to abolish slavery in the District 
of Columbia against the wishes of the 
slave-holding States; and also with a 
determination equally decided to resist 
the slightest interference with it in the 
States where it exists." He then pro- 
ceeds : "I submitted also to my fellow- 
citizens, with fulness and frankness, the 
reasons which led me to this determina- 
tion. The result authorizes me to be- 
lieve that they have been approved and 
are confided in by a majority of the peo- 
ple of the United States, including those 
whom they most immediately affect. It 
now only remains to add, that no bill 



conflicting with these views can ever 
receive my constitutional sanction." 

In the next place, we know that Mr. 
Van Buren 's casting vote was given for 
a law of very doubtful propriety, — a 
law to allow postmasters to open the 
mails and see if there was any incen- 
diary matter in them, and, if so, to de- 
stroy it. I do not say that there was no 
constitutional power to pass such a law. 
Perhaps the people of the South thought 
it was necessary to protect themselves 
from incitements to insurrection. So 
far as any thing endangers the lives and 
property of the South, so far I agree that 
there may be such legislation in Congi-ess 
as shall prevent such results. 

But, Gentlemen, no man has exercised 
a more controlling influence on the con- 
duct of his friends in this country than 
Mr. Van Buren. I take it that the 
most important event in our time tend- 
ing to the extension of slavery and its 
everlasting establishment on this conti- 
nent, was the annexation of Texas, in 
1841. Where was Mr. Van Buren then? 
Let me ask. Three or four yeai-s ago, 
where was he then? Every friend of 
Mr. Van Buren, so far as I know, sup- 
ported the measure. The two Senators 
from New York supported it, and the 
members of the House of Representa- 
tives from Xew York supported it, and 
nobody resisted it but Whigs. And I 
say in the face of the world, I say in 
the face of those connected with, or 
likely to be benefited by, the Buffalo 
Convention, — I say to all of them, that 
there has been no party of men in this 
country which has firmly and sternly re- 
sisted the progress of the slave power 
but the Whigs. 

Why, look to this very question of 
the annexation of Texas. We talk of 
the dictation of the slave power! At 
least they do, I do not. I do not allow 
that anybody dictates to me. They 
talk of the triumph of the South over 
the North ! There is not a word of truth 
or reason in the whole of it. I am bound 
to say on my conscience, that, of all the 
evils inflicted upon us by these acquisi- 
tions of slave territory, the North has 
borne its full part in the infliction. 



SPEECH AT MArvSIIFIKLD. 






Northern votes, in full proportion, have 
been given in both houses for the ac- 
quisition of new territory, in whioh 
slavery existed. We talk of the Nortli. 
There has for a long time been no North. 
I think the North Star is at last discov- 
ered; I think there will be a North; but 
up to the recent session of Congress 
there has been no North, no geographi- 
cal section of the country, in which 
there has been found a strong, conscien- 
tious, and united opposition to slavery. 
No such North has existed. 
Pope says, you know, 

" Ask where 's the North V At York, 'tis on the 
Tweed ; 
In Scotlaiui, at theOrcades; and there, 
At Greenland, Zenibla, or the Lord knows 
where." 

Now, if there has heretofore been 
such a North as I have described, a 
North strong in opinion and united in 
action against slavery, — if such a Xorth 
has existed anywhere, it has existed 
"the Lord knows where," I do not. 
"Why, on this very question of the ad- 
mission of Texas, it may be said with 
truth, that the North let in Texas. 
The "V^Tiigs, North and South, resisted 
Texas. Ten Senators from slave-hold- 
ing States, of the Whig party, resisted 
Texas. Two, only, as I remember, 
voted for it. But the Southern Whig 
votes against Texas were overpowered 
by the Democratic votes from the Free 
States, and from New P^ngland among 
the rest. Yes, if there had not been 
votes from New England in favor of 
Texas, Texas would have been out of 
the Union to this day. Yes, if men 
from New England had been true, Texas 
would have been nothing but Texas still. 
There were four votes in the Senate 
from New England in favor of the ad- 
mission of Texas, Mr. Van Buren's 
friends, Democratic members: one from 
Maine; two from New Hampshire; one 
from Connecticut. Two of these gen- 
tlemen were confidential friends of Mr. 
Van Buren, and had botli been mem- 
bers of his cabinet. They voted for 
Texas; and they let in Texas, against 
Southern Whigs and Northern Wlii;;s. 
That is the truth of it, my friends. Mr. 



Van Buren, by the wave of liiit haii.l, 
could have kej.t out Texas. A word, ii 
I'-tter. though it IkuI U-.-n ••v.-n sliorU-r 
than General Ciwts'.s letter to the Cliieajjo 
Convention, would have Ihm-Mi euouyh, 
and Would have done U>e work. But 
he wa5> .silent. 

When Northern rnenilK>r.>4 of Conjfn-'aw 
voted, in 1820, for tlie Mijvsouri Cuiiipro- 
mise, against the known will of tli.ir 
constituents, tin-y were called •• D-.u ii 
Faces." I am afraid, fellow-t-iti/ 
that the generation of " dougli factjs " 
will be as i>eri)etual a.s the generation of 
men. 

In 1844, as we all know, Mr. Van 
Buren was a candidate for tlie Tr -• 
dency, on the part of the Demcxi.i' , 
party, but lost the nomination at Balti- 
more. We now learn, from a letter from 
General Jackson to Mr. Butler, that Mr. 
Van Buren's claim.s were 8u[K,'r»eded, 
because, after all. the Soutii tliou'.:lit 
that the accomplishment of the annexa- 
tion of Texas niiglit be more safely in- 
trusted to Southern hands. We all 
know that the Northern ]K)rtion of tho 
Democratic party were frien<lly to Mr. 
Van Burem Our neighbors from New 
Hampshire, and Maine, and elsewhere, 
were Van Buren men. But the tntmient 
it was ascertained that Mr. Bolk wjus the 
favorite of the South, ami the favorite 
of the South upon the ground 1 have 
mentioned, as a man more certain to 
bring about the anni'xation of Texa.^ 
than Mr. Van Buren, these friends of 
Mr. Van Buren in the North all " cavwl 
in," — not a man of them stixnl. Mr. 
Van Buren himself wrote a letter verj* 
conqilinientary t« Mr. I'olk ajid Mr. 
Dalhus, and found no fault with tlie 
nomination. 

Now, ( Jentleinen, if they were " douj;l> 
faces " who voted for tlie Mi.Hsouri Coni- 
pnjini.se, what epithet .should >' 
these men, here in our New L: , . 
who were so ready, not only to ciianK*' 
or abandon him wliom they ujik-I cor- 
dially wished U) supiKirt. but tlid i«o in 
order to make more sure the annexatinn 
of Texas. They nominated .Mr. Polk 
at till! request «>f (gentlemen fr^ ■ *' - 
South, and voted fur him, t. 



584 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD, 



thick and thin, till the work was ac- 
complished, and ISIr. Polk elected. For 
my part, I think that "dough faces" 
is an epithet not sufficiently reproach- 
ful. Such persons are dough faces, 
with dough heads, and dough hearts, 
and dough souls; they ai'e all dough; 
the coarsest potter may mould them to 
vessels of honor or dishonor, — most 
readily to vessels of dishoxioT. 

But what do we now see? Repent- 
ance has gone far. There are among 
these very people, these very gentlemen, 
persons who espouse, with great zeal, 
the interests of the Free Soil party. I 
hope their repentance is as sincere as it 
appears to be. I hope it is honest con- 
viction, and not merely a new chance 
for power, under a new name and a new 
party. But, with all their j)retensions, 
and with all their patriotism, I see 
dough still sticking on the cheeks of 
some of them. And therefore I have 
no confidence in them, not a particle. 
I do not mean to say, that the great 
mass of the peoi:)le, especially those who 
went to the Buffalo Convention from 
this State, have not the highest and 
purest motives. I think they act un- 
wisely, but I acquit them of dishonest 
intentions. But with respect to others, 
and those who have been part and par- 
cel in the measures which have brought 
new slave territory into this Union, I 
distrust them all. If they repent, let 
them, before we trust them, do works 
worthy of repentance. 

I have said. Gentlemen, that in my 
opinion, if it were desirable to place 
JVlr. Van Buren at the head of govern- 
ment, there is no chance for him. 
Others are as good judges as I am. 
But I am not able to say that I see any 
State in the Union in which there is a 
reasonable probability that he will get 
the vote. There may be. Others are 
more versed in such statistics than I am. 
But I see none, and therefore I think 
that we are reduced to a choice between 
General Cass and General Taylor. You 
may remember, that in the discussions 
of 1844, when Mr. Birney was drawing 
off votes from the \VTiig candidate, I 
said that every vote for Mr. Birney 



was half a vote for Mr. Polk. Is it 
not true that the vote of the Liber- 
ty party taken from Mr. Clay's vote 
in the State of New York made Mr. 
Polk President? That is as clear as any 
historical fact. And in my judgment, 
it will be so now. I consider every 
Whig vote given to Mr. Van Buren, as 
directly aiding the election of Mr. Cass. 
Mark, I say, Whig vote. There may be 
States in which Mr. Van Buren may 
draw from the other side largely. But 
I speak of Whig votes, in this State and 
in any State. And I am of opinion, that 
any such vote given to Mr. Van Buren 
inures to the benefit of General Cass. 

Now as to General Cass, Gentlemen. 
We need not go to the Baltimore plat- 
form to instruct ourselves as to what his 
politics are, or how he will conduct the 
government. General Cass will go into 
the government, if at all, chosen by the 
same party that elected Mr. Polk ; and 
he will "follow in the footsteps of his 
illustrious i^i'edecessor. " I hold him, I 
confess, in the present state of the coun- 
try, to be the most dangerous man on 
whom the powers of the exectitive chief 
magistracy could well be conferred. He 
would consider himself, not as conser- 
vative, not as protective to present insti- 
tutions, but as belonging to the party 
of Progress. He believes in the doc- 
trine of American destiny ; and that 
that destiny is, to go through wars and 
invasions, and maintain vast armies, to 
establish a great, powerful, domineering 
government over all this continent. We 
know that, if Mr. Cass could have pre- 
vented it, the treaty with England in 
184'2 would not have been made. We 
know that, if Mr. Cass could have pre- 
vented it, the settlement of the Oregon 
question would not have been accom- 
plished in 1846. We know that General 
Cass could have prevented the Mexican 
war; and we know that he was first 
and foremost in pressing that war. We 
know that he is a man of talent, of 
ability, of some celebrity as a states- 
man, in every way superior to his pre- 
decessor, if he should be the successor 
of Mr. Polk. But I think him a man of 
rash politics, pushed on by a rash party, 



SPEECH AT MARSIIFIKLD. 



685 



and committed to a course of policy, as 
I believe, not in consistency with the 
happiness and security of the country. 
Therefore it is for you, and for nie, and 
for all of us, Whigs, to consider wheth- 
er, in this state of the case, we can or 
cannot, ^Ye will or will not, give our 
votes for the AVhig nomination. I leave 
that to every man's conscience. I have 
endeavored to state the case as it pi"e- 
sents itself to me. 

Gentlemen, before General Taylor's 
nomination, I stated always, wlu'ii the 
subject was mentioned by my friends, 
that I did not and could not reconunend 
the nomination of a military man to 
the people of the United States for the 
office of President. It was against my 
conviction of what was due to the best 
interests of the country, and to the char- 
acter of the republic. I stated always, 
at the same time, that if General Taylor 
should be nominated by the Whig Con- 
vention, fairly, I should not oppose his 
election. I stand now upon the same 
declaration. General Taylor has been 
nominated fairly, as far as I know, and 
I cannot, therefore, and shall not, op- 
pose his election. At the same time, 
there is no man who is more firmly of 
opinion that such a nomination was not 
fit to be made. But the declaration that 
I would not oppose General Taylor, if 
nominated by the Whig party, was of 
course subject, in the nature of things, 
to some exceptions. If I believed him 
to be a man who would plunge the 
country into further wars for any pur- 
pose of ambition or conquest, I would 
oppose him, let him be nominated by 
whom he might. If I believed tiiat he 
was a man who would exert his official 
influence for the further extension of 
the slave power, I would oj^pose him, 
let him be nominated by whom he might, 
liut I do not believe either. I believe 
that he has been, from the first, opposed 
to the policy of the Mexican war, as im- 
proper, impolitic, and inexpedient. I 
believe, from the best information I can 
obtain, — and you will take this as niy 
own opinion, Gentlemen, — 1 believe, 
from the best information I can obtain, 
that he has no disposition to go to war, 



or to form new State.s in order to in- 
crease the limits of Blaverj". 

(lentlcmtMi, so nuioli for what may lio 
coiisiilered jus U'loiigiiif,' to tho l*n>»i- 
dency as a national (jm-stidn. Hut l\w 
case by no means stops lu-rv. Wo 
are citizens of Massachii.««'tt.>*. Wo are 
Whigs of Massmliusftts. W'v luive tm\>- 
ported the present g«)vernnjent of tho 
State for yi-ars, with sin-icss; ami I hav.- 
tliouglit that mo.st ^Vhigs witc xatix- 
fied with the administration of the State 
government in tiu' iiands of those wiio 
have had it. But now it is j)roi>o.'«'<!, I 
presume, on the basi.s of the BufTalu 
Platform, to carry tliis into the State 
elections, as well as into the national 
elections. There is to l»e a nomination 
of a candidate for Governor, agaiiiHt 
Mr. Briggs, or whoever may 1m' nomi- 
nated by tlie Whigs; and tliere is to Uj 
a nomination of a candidate ft>r Lieu- 
tenant-Governor, against Mr. Keed, or 
whoever may be nominated by the Whigw ; 
and there are to be nominations agaiiiHt 
the present members of Congress. Now, 
what is the utility or the nece.ssity of 
this? We have ten members in the 
Congress of the United States. I know 
not ten men of any jiarty who are nioro 
zealous, and firm, and intlfxihle in their 
opposition against slavery in ony form. 

And what will be the residt of op|H>s- 
ing their re-election? Suppose that a 
considerable number of ^Vhigs secede 
from tlie Whig i>arty, and KupjKirt a 
candidate of this new party, wlial will 
be the result? Do we not know what 
has been the ca.se in this State? ])o wo 
not know that this district ha.s l>reii un- 
represented from month to moutb, and 
from year to year, liecause tliore has bwMi 
an opjMisition to as good an ant' 
man as breathes the air of this <i 
On this occasion, and even in his tiwn 
presence. I may allude to our Iteprewnt- 
ative. Mr. Hale. Do we want a man 
to give a better vote in Conjrn'Hji than 
Mr. Hale gives? Why. I undertake to 
say that there is not one of tho LiU'rty 
party, nor will there \m one of thi* new 
party, who will have tlio leiwl obj««ctioii 
to Mr. Hal.', ex.<|.t that he wa* n<it 
noiiiiiiated hv th.iii.-elves. Ten to one, 



586 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



if the Whigs had not nominated him, 
they would have nominated him them- 
selves; doubtless they would, if he had 
come into their organization, and called 
himself a third party man. 

Xow, Gentlemen, I remember it to 
have occurred, that, on very important 
questions in Congress, the vote was lost 
for want of two or three members which 
Massachusetts might have sent, but 
which, in consequence of the division 
of parties, she did not send. And now 
I foresee that, if in this district any con- 
siderable number of "VMiigs think it their 
duty to join ia the support of Mr. Van 
Buren, and in the support of gentlemen 
whom that party may nominate for Con- 
gress, the same thing will take place, 
and we shall be without a representa- 
tive, in all probability, in the first ses- 
sion of the next Congress, when the 
battle is to be fought on this very sla- 
verv question. The same is likely to 
happen in other districts. I am sm-e 
that honest, intelligent, and patriotic 
"Whigs will lay this consideration to 
their consciences, and judge of it as 
they think they ought to do. 

Gentlemen, I will detain you but a 
moment longer. You know that I gave 
my vote in Congi-ess against the treaty 
of peace with Mexico, because it con- 
tained these cessions of territory, and 
brought under the authoritj- of the 
United States, with a pledge of future 
admission into the Union, the great, 
vast, and almost unkno^vn countries of 
Xew Mexico and California. 

In the session before the last, one of the 
Southern Whig Senators. Mr. Berrien of 
Georgia, had moved a resolution, to the 
effect that the war ought not to be con- 
tinued for the pui-poses of conquest and 
acquisition. The i-esolution declared that 
the war with Mexico ought not to be 
prosecuted by this government with any 
view to the dismemberment of that re- 
public, or to the acquisition, by con- 
quest, of any portion of her territoiy. 
That proposition he introduced into the 
Senate, in the form of a resolution; and 
I believe that every Whig Senator but 
one voted for it. But the Senators be- 
londng to the Locofoco or Democratic 



party voted against it. The Senators 
from Xew York voted against it. Gen- 
eral Ca.ss, from the free State of Mich- 
igan, Mr. Fairfield, from Maine, Mr. 
XUes, from Connecticut, and others, 
voted against it, and the vote was lost. 
That is, these gentlemen, — some of 
them very prominent friends of Mr. Van 
Buren, and ready to take the field for 
him, — these very gentlemen voted not 
to exclude territory that might be ob- 
tained by conquest. They were willing 
to bring iu the territory, and then have 
a squabble and controversy whether it 
shoidd be slave or free territory. I was 
of opinion that the true and safe policy 
was, to shut out the whole question by 
getting no territory, and thereby keep 
off all controversy. The territory will 
do us no good, if free ; it wUl be an en- 
cumbrance, if free. To a great extent, 
it will produce a preponderance iri favor 
of the South in the Senate, even if it be 
free. Let us keep it out, therefore. But 
no. We will make the acquisition, bring 
in the territory, and manage it after- 
wards. That was the policy. 

Gentlemen, in an important crisis in 
English history, in the reign of Charles 
the Second, when the country was threat- 
ened by the accession to the throne of a 
prince, then called the Duke of York, 
who was a bigot to the Roman Catholic 
religion, a proposition was made to ex- 
clude him from the crown. Some said 
that was a very rash measure, brought 
forward by very rash men; that they 
had better admit him, and then put lim- 
itations upon him. chain him down, re- 
strict him. When the debate was going 
on. a member is reported to have risen 
and expressed his senthnents by rather 
■ a grotesque comparison, but one of con- 
siderable force : — 

" I hear a lion, in the lobby, roar! 

Sav. ^Ir. .Speaker, shall we shut the door, 
And keep him out; or shall we let him in, 
And see if we can get him out again V " 

I was for shutting the door and keep- 
ing the lion out. Other more confident 
spirits, who are of the character of Van 
Amburgh, were for letting him in, and 
disturbing aU the interests of the coun- 
try. When this Mexican treaty came 



SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 



687 



before the Senate, it had certain clauses 
ceding New Mexico and California to 
the United States. A Southern gentle- 
man, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, 
moved to strike out those clauses. Now 
you understand, that if a motion to 
strike out a clause of a treaty be sup- 
ported by one third, it will be struck 
out; that is, two thirds of the Senate 
must vote for each clause, in order to 
have it retained. The vote on this ques- 
tion of striking out stood 38 to 14, not 
quite one third being against the ces- 
sion, and so the clause was retained. 
And why were there not one third? Just 
because there were four New England 
Senators voting for these new territo- 
ries. That is the reason. 

I hope I am as ardent an advocate for 
peace as any man living; but I would 
not be carried away by the desire for 
peace to commit an act which I believed 
highly injurious, likely to have conse- 
quences of a permanent character, and 
indeed to endanger the existence of the 
government. Besides, I believed that 
we could have struck out the cessions of 
territory, and had peace just as soon. 
And I would be willing to go before the 
people and leave it to them to say, 
whether they woiUd carry on the war 
any longer for acquisition of territory. 
If they would, then they were the artifi- 
cers of their own fortunes. I was not 
afraid of the people on that subject. But 
if this course had continued the war 
somewhat longer, I would have preferred 
that result, rather than that those ter- 
ritories lying on our southern border 
should come in hereafter as new States. 
1 should speak, perhaps, with more con- 
fidence, if some Whigs of the North had 
not voted for the treaty. ]\Iy own opin- 
ion was then clear and decisive. For 
myself I thought the case a perfectly 
plain one, and no man has yet stated a 
reason to convince me to the contraiy. 

I voted to strike out the articles of 
cession. They would have been struck 
out if four of the New England Senators 
had not voted against the motion. 1 
then voted against the ratification of 
the treaty, and that treaty would have 
failed if three New England Senators 



had not voted for it, and Whig St-natoi-H 
too. I should do tlie same thing again, 
and with much more resolution. 1 would 
have run a still greater risk, I would 
have endured a still greater .shoek, I 
would have risked any thing, ratiier than 
have been a participator in any measure 
which shoukl have a tendeney to annex 
Southern territory to the States of the 
Union. I hope it will be rememU'red, 
in all future time, that on this (juestion 
of the accession of these new territories 
of almost boundless extent, I voted 
against them, and against the treaty 
which contained them, notwithstanding 
all inducements to the contrary, and all 
the cries, which I thought hasty and 
injudicious, of "Peace! Peace on any 
terms!" I will add. that those who 
voted against the treaty were gentlemen 
from so many parts of the coimtry, that 
its rejection would have been an act 
rather of national than of local resist- 
ance. There were votes against it from 
both parties, and from all jnirties, the 
South and the West, the North and the 
East. What we wanted was a few more 
New England votes. 

Gentlemen, after I had the honor of 
receiving the invitation to meet my fel- 
low-citizens, I found it necessary, in the 
discharge of my duty, though with great 
inconvenience to my liealth, to be present 
at tlie closing scenes of the session. You 
know what there transpired. You know 
the important decision that was made in 
both houses of Congress, in regard to 
Oregon. The innnediate (juestion re- 
spected Oregon, or rather tlie bill re- 
spected Oregon, but the (piestion more 
particularly concerned these new terri- 
tories. 'J'he effect of the bill as passed 
in the Senate was to e.s-tal>!isli these new 
tenitorios as slave-holding Slates. Tlie 
House di.sagreed. The Senate receded 
from their ground, and the bill jiassed, 
establishing Oregon as a free Territory, 
and making no provision for the newly 
acquired territories on the South. My 
vote, and the reasons I gave for it, an* 
known to the good people of .\h».'<sachu- 
setts, and I have not heard tlnit they 
liave expressed any i>articular ili.sappro- 
bation of them. 



588 



SPEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 



But this question is to be resumed at 
the first session of the next Congress. 
There is no probability that it will be 
settled at the next session of this Con- 
gress. But at least at the first session 
of the next Congress this question will 
be resumed. It will enter at tliis very 
period into all the elections of the South. 

And now I venture to say. Gentle- 
men, two things; the first well known 
to you, that General Cass is in favor 
of what is called the Comjiromise Line, 
and is of opinion that the Wilmot Pro- 
viso, or the Ordinance of 1787, which 
excludes slavery from territories, ought 
not to be applied to territories lying 
south of 36° 30'. He announced this 
before he was nominated, and if he had 
not announced it, he would have been 
36° 30' farther off from being nominated. 
In the next place, he will do all he can 
to establish that compromise line; and 
lastly, which is a matter of opinion, in my 
conscientious belief he will establish it. 

Give him the power and the patronage 
of the government, let him exercise it 
over certain portions of the country 
whose representatives voted on this occa- 
sion to put off that question for future 
consideration; let him have the power 
of this government with his attachments, 
with his inducements, and we shall see 
the result. I verily believe, that unless 
there is a renewed strength, an aug- 
mented strength, of Whig votes in Con- 
gress, he will accomplish his purpose. 
He will surely have the Senate, and with 
the patronage of the government, with 
every interest which he can bring to 
bear, co-operating with every interest 
which the South can bring to bear, he 
■will establish the compromise line. We 



cry safety before we are out of the woods, 
if we feel that the danger respecting the 
territories is over. 

Gentlemen, I came here to confer with 
you as friends and countrymen, to speak 
my own mind and hear yours; but if we 
all should speak, and occupy as much 
time as I have, we should make a late 
meeting. I shall detain you no longer, 
I have been long in public life, longer, 
far longer than I shall remain there. I 
have had some participation for more 
than thirty years in the councils of the 
nation . I profess to feel a strong attach- 
ment to the liberty of the United States, 
to the Constitution and free institutions 
of this country, to the honor, and I may 
say the glory, of my native land. I feel 
every injury inflicted upon it, almost as 
a personal injury. I blush for every 
fault which I think I see committed in 
its public councils, as if they were faults 
or mistakes of my own. I know that, 
at this moment, there is no object upon 
earth so much attracting the gaze of the 
intelligent and civilized nations of the 
earth as this great republic. All men 
look at us, all men examinfe our course, 
all good men are anxious for a favorable 
result to this great experiment of repub- 
lican liberty. We are on a hill and can- 
not be hid. We cannot withdraw our- 
selves either from the commendation or 
the reproaches of the civilized world. 
They see us as that star of empire which 
half a century ago was represented as 
making its way westward. I wish they 
may see it as a mild, placid, though 
brilliant orb, moving athwart the whole 
heavens to the enlightening and cheer- 
ing of mankind; and not as a meteor of 
fire and blood, terrifying the nations. 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



[The death of the Hon. Jeremiah Mason, 
one of the most eminent members of tlie 
legal profession in tlie United States, took 
place at Boston, on the 14th of October, 
1848. At a meeting of the Bar of the 
County of Suffolk, Mass., held on the 17th 
instant, appropriate resolutions in honor of 
the deceased, accompanied with a few elo- 
quent observations, were introduced by Mr. 
Choate, and unanimously adopted. It was 
voted by the meeting, that Mr. Webster 
should be requested to present these reso- 
lutions to the Supreme Judicial Court at its 
next term in Boston. 

In compliance with this request, at the 
opening of the next term of the court, on 
the 14th of November, 1848, prayer having 
been offered, Mr. Webster rose and spoke 
as follows.] 

May it please your Honors, — Jere- 
miah Mason, one of the counsellors of 
this court, departed this life on the 14th 
ol October, at his residence in this city. 
The death of one of its members, so 
highly respected, so much admired and 
venerated, could not fail to produce a 
striking impression upon the members 
of this bar; and a meeting was imme- 
diately called, at which a member of this 
court, ju.st on the eve of leaving the 
practice of his profession for a seat on 
the bench, ^ presided; and resolutions 
exjiressive of the sense entertained by 
the bar of the high character of the de- 
ceased, and of sincere condolence with 
those whom his loss touched more nearly, 
were moved by one of his distinguished 
brethren, and adopted witli entire una- 
nimity. My brethren have appointed 
me to the honorable duty of presenting 
these resolutions to this court ; and it is 
in discharge of that duty that I rise to 
address you, and pray that the resolu- 
tions which I hold in my hand may be 
read by the clerk. 

1 Mr. Justice Richard Fletcher. 



The clerk of the court then read the 
resolutions, as follows : — 

" Resdved, That the members of this bar 
have heard witli profound emotion of the 
decease of the Honorable Jeremiah Ma- 
son, one of the most eminent and distin- 
guished of the great men who have ever 
adorned this profession; and, as well in 
discharge of a public duty, as in obedience 
to tlie dictates of our private feelings, 
we think it proper to mark this occasion 
by some attempt to record our estimate 
of his pre-eminent abilities and higli ciiar- 
acter. 

"Resolved, That the public character and 
services of Mr. Mason demand jirominent 
commemoration; that, throughout his long 
life, wliether as a private person or in pub- 
lic place, he maiiUained a wide and various 
intercourse with public men, and cherished 
a constant and deep interest in public 
affairs, and by his vast practical wisdom 
and sagacity, the fruit of extraordinary in- 
tellectual endowments, matured thought, 
and profound observation, and by the sound- 
ness of his opinions and the comprehensive- 
ness and elevated tone of his politics, he 
exerted at all times a great and nio.-it salu- 
tary influence upon the sentiments and pol- 
icy of the community and the country ; and 
that, as a Senator in the Congress of the 
United States during a period of many 
years, and in a crisis of affairs which de- 
manded the wisdom of the wisest and the 
civil virtues of the best, he was distin- 
guished among tlie most eminent nun of 
his country for ability in debate, for atten- 
tion to all the duties of his gnat trust, for 
moderation, for pruilence, for liileiity to the 
obligations of that party connection to 
which he was attached, for tidility still 
more conspicuous and still more admirable 
to the higher obligations of a thoughtful 
and enlarged iiatriutisin. 

" R^solnd, That it was the privilege of 
Mr. Mason to come to the bar wlun the 
jurisprudence of New Knglaiid was yel in 



590 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



its infancy ; that he brought to its cultiva- 
tion great general ability, and a practical 
sagacity, logical power, and patient re- 
search, — constituting altogether a legal 
genius, rarely if ever surpassed ; that it was 
greatly through his influence that tlie grow- 
ing wants of a prosperous State were met 
and satisfied by a system of common law 
at once flexible and certain, deduced by the 
highest human wisdom from the actual 
wants of the community, logically correct, 
and practically useful ; that in the fact that 
the State of New Hampshire now possesses 
such a system of law, whose gladsome light 
has shone on other States, are seen both 
the product and the monument of his labors, 
less conspicuous, but not less real, than if 
embodied in codes and institutes bearing 
his name ; yet that, bred as he was to the 
common law, his great powers, opened and 
liberalized by its study and practice, en- 
abled him to grasp readily, and wield with 
entire ease, those systems of equity, appli- 
cable to the transactions of the land or the 
sea, which, in recent times, have so much 
meliorated and improved the administra- 
tion of justice in our country. 

" Resolved, Tliat as respects his practice 
as a counsellor and advocate at this bar, 
we would record our sense of liis integrity, 
prudence, fidelity, depth of learning, knowl- 
edge of men and affairs, and great powers 
of persuading kindred minds ; and we know 
well, that, when he died, there was extin- 
guished one of the few great lights of the 
old common law. 

" Resolved, That Mr. "Webster be request- 
ed to present these resolutions to the Su- 
preme Judicial Court, at its next term, in 
Boston ; and the District Attorney of the 
United States be requested to present them 
to the Circuit Court of the United States 
now in session. 

" Resolved, That the Secretary communi- 
cate to the family of Mr. Mason a copy of 
these resolutions, together with the respect- 
ful sympathy of the bar." 

The proprieties of this occasion (con- 
tinued Mr. Webster) compel me, with 
whatever reluctance, to refrain from the 
indulgence of the personal feelings which 
arise in my heart, upon the death of 
one with whom I have cultivated a sin- 
cere, affectionate, and unbroken friend- 
ship, from the day when I commenced 
my own professional career, to the clos- 
ing hour of his life. I will not say, of 



the advantages which I have derived 
from his intercourse and conversation, 
all that Mr. Fox said of Edmund Burke; 
but I am bound to say, that of my own 
professional discipline and attainments, 
whatever they may be, I owe much to 
that close attention to the discharge of 
my duties which I was compelled to 
pay, for nine successive years, from day 
to day, by Mr. Mason's efforts and ar- 
guments at the same bar. Fas est ah 
hoste doceri; and I must have been un- 
intelligent, indeed, not to have learned 
something from the constant displays of 
that power which I had so much occa- 
sion to see and to feel. 

It is the more appropriate duty of the 
present moment to give some short no- 
tice of his life, character, and the quali- 
ties of his mind and heart, so that he 
may be presented as an example to those 
who are entering upon or pursuing the 
same career. Four or five years ago, 
Mr. Mason drew up a biography of 
himself, from the earliest period of his 
recollection to the time of his removal 
to Portsmouth, in 1797; which is inter- 
esting, not only for the information it 
gives of the mode in which the habits of 
his life were formed, but also for the 
manner of its composition. 

He was born on the 27th day of April, 
1768, at Lebanon in Connecticut. His 
remotest ancestor in this country was 
Captain John Mason (an officer wlio 
had served with distinction in the Neth- 
erlands, under Sir Thomas Fairfax), 
who came from England in 1630, and 
settled at Dorchester in the Colony of 
Massachusetts. His great-grandfather 
lived at Haddam. His grandfather, 
born in 1705, lived at Norwich, and 
died in the year 1779. Mr. Mason 
remembered him, and recollected his 
character, as that of a respectable and 
deeply religious man. His ancestor on 
the maternal side was James Fitch, a 
learned divine, who came from England 
and settled in Saybrook, but removed 
to Lebanon, where he died. A Latin 
epitaph, in the ancient burying-ground 
of that town, records his merits. One 
of his descendants held a large tract of 
land in the parish of Goshen, in tlie 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



591 



town of Lebanon, by grant from the 
Indians; one half of which, near a cen- 
tury afterwards, was bequeathed to his 
daughter, Elizabeth Fitch, the mother 
of Mr. [Mason. To this property Mr. 
Mason's father removed soon after his 
marriage, and there he died, in 181;). 
The title of this land was obtained from 
Uncas, an Indian sachem in that neigh- 
borhood, by the great-grandfather of 
Mr. Mason's mother, and has never 
been alienated from the family. It is 
now owned by Ali\ Mason's nephew, 
Jeremiah Mason, the son of his eldest 
brother James. The family has been 
distinguished for longevity; the average 
ages of Mr. Mason's six immediate 
ancestors having exceeded eighty-three 
years each. Mr. Mason was the sixth 
of nine children, all of whom are now 
dead. 

^Ir. ilason's father was a man of in- 
telligence and activity, of considerable 
opulence, and highly esteemed by the 
community. At the commencement of 
the Revolutionary wai', being a zealous 
Whig, he raised and commanded a com- 
pany of minute-men, as they were called, 
and marched to the siege of Boston. 
Here he rendered important service, 
being stationed at Dorchester Heiglits, 
and engaged in fortifpng that position. 
In the autumn of that year, he was pro- 
moted to a colonelcy, and joined the 
army with his regiment, in the n,eigh- 
borhood of Xew York. At the end of 
the campaign, he returned home out of 
health, but retained the command of his 
regiment, which he rallied and brought 
out with celerity and spirit when Gen- 
eral Arnold assaulted and burned Xew 
London. He became attached to mili- 
tary life, and regretted that he had not 
at an early day entered the Continental 
service. Colonel Mason was a good 
man, affectionate to his family, kind 
and obliging to his neighbors, and faith- 
ful in the observance of all moral and 
religious duties. 

Mr. IMason's mother was distinguished 
for a good understanding, much discre- 
tion, the purity of her heart and affec- 
tions, and the exemplary kindness and 
benevolence of her life. It was her 



great anxiety to give all her children 
the best education, within the means of 
the family, which the state of the coun- 
try would allow; and she was particu- 
larly desirous that Jeremiah .should be 
sent to college. " In my recollection of 
my mother," says Mr. Ma.son, " siie 
was the personification of love, kind- 
ness, and benevolence." 

Destined for an education and for 
professional life, Air. Mason was sent 
to Yale College, at sixteen years of age; 
his preparatory studies having been pur- 
sued under " Master Tisdale," who had 
then been forty years at the head of a 
school in Lebanon, which liad become 
distinguished, and among tiie scholars 
of which were the Wheelocks, after- 
wards Presidents of Dartmouth Colleee. 
He was graduated in 178-1, and per- 
formed a part in the Commencement 
exercises, which greatly raised the ex- 
pectation of his friends, and gratified 
and animated his love for distinction. 
" In the course of a long and active 
life," says he, "I recollect no occasion 
when I have experienced such elevation 
of feeling." This was the effect of that 
spirit of emulation which incited the 
whole course of his life of usefulness. 
There is now prevalent among us a 
morbid and sickly notion, that emu- 
lation, even as honorable rivalry, is a 
debasing passion, and not to be encour- 
aged. It supposes that the mind should 
be left without such excitement, in a 
dreamy and undisturbed state, flowing 
or not flowing, according to its own im- 
pulse, without such aids as are furnished 
by the rivalry of one with another. For 
one, I do not believe in this. I hold to 
the doctrine of the old school, as to this 
part of education. Quiuctilian .says: 
'•Sunt quidam, nisi iustitcris, reniissi; 
quidam imperio indignantur; quosdam 
continet metus, qnosdain debilitat: alios 
continuatio extundit, in aliis plus im- 
petus facit. Mihi ille detur puer, quem 
laus excitet, quem gloria juvet, qui 
victus fleat; hie erit alcndiis ambitu, 
hunc mordebit objurgatio, huiio iionor 
excitabit; in hoc desidiam nunquara 
verebor." I think this is sound sense 
and just feeling. 



592 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



Mr. Mason was destined for the law, 
and commenced the study of tliat pro- 
fession with Mr. Baldwin, a gentleman 
who has lived to perform important 
public and private duties, has seiwed 
his country in Congress, and on the 
bench of the Supreme Court of Connect- 
icut, and still lives to hear the account 
of the peaceful death of his distinguished 
pupil. After a year, he went to Ver- 
mont, in whose recently established tri- 
bunals he expected to find a new sphere 
for the gratification of ambition, and 
the employment of talents. He studied 
in the office of Stephen Rowe Bradley, 
afterwards a Senator in Congress; and 
was admitted to the bar, in Ver- 
mont and New Hampshire, in the year 
1791. 

He began his career in Westmoreland, 
a few miles below Walpole, at the age 
of twenty-three; but in 1794, three years 
afterwards, removed to Walpole, as be- 
ing a larger village, where there was 
more society and more business. There 
was at that time on the Connecticut 
River a rather unusual number of gen- 
tlemen, distinguished for polite accom- 
plishments and correct tastes in litera- 
ture, and among them some well known 
to the public as respectable writers and 
authors. Among these were Mr. Ben- 
jamin West, Mr. Dennie, Mr. Royall 
Tyler, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Samuel Hunt, 
Mr. J. W. Blake, Mr. Colman (who es- 
tablished, and for a long time edited, 
the "New York Evening Post"), and 
Mr. Olcott. In the association with 
these gentlemen, and those like them, 
Mr. Mason found an agreeable position, 
and cultivated tastes and habits of the 
highest character. 

About this period, he made a journey 
to Virginia, on some business connected 
with land titles, where he had much 
intei'course with Major-General Henry 
Lee; and, on his return, he saw Presi- 
dent Washington, at Philadelphia, and 
was greatly struck by the urbanity and 
dignity of his manner. He heard Fisher 
Ames make his celebrated speech upon 
the British treaty. All that the world 
has said with regard to the extraordi- 
nary effect produced by that speech, 



and its wonderful excellence, is fully 
confirmed by the opinion of Mr. Mason. 
He speaks of it as one of the highest 
exhibitions of popular oratory that he 
had ever witnessed ; popular, not in any 
low sense, but popular as being addressed 
to a popular body, and high in all the 
qualities of sound reasoning and enlight- 
ened eloquence. 

Mr. Mason was inclined to exercise 
his abilities in a larger sphere. He had 
at this time made the acquaintance of 
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. 
The former advised Mr. Mason to re- 
move himself to New York. His own 
preference was for Boston; but he 
thought, that, filled as it then was 
by distinguished professional ability, it 
was too crowded to allow him a place. 
That was a mistake. On the contrary, 
the bar of this city, with the utmost 
liberality and generosity of feeling and 
sentiment, have always been ready to 
receive, with open arms, every honor- 
able acquisition to the dignity and use- 
fulness of the profession, from other 
States. Mr. Mason, however, removed 
to Portsmouth in the autumn of 1797 ; 
and, as was to be expected, his prac- 
tice soon became extensive. He was 
appointed Attorney-General in 1802. 
About that time, the late learned and 
lamented Chief Justice Smith retired 
from his professional duties, to take his 
place as a judge; and Mr. Mason be- 
came the acknowledged head of his pro- 
fession. He resigned the office of 
Attorney-General, three or four years 
afterwards, to the great regret of the 
court, the bar, and the country. As a 
prosecuting officer, he was courteous, 
inflexible, and just; careful that the 
guilty should not escape, and that the 
honest should be protected. He was 
impartial, almost judicial, in the ad- 
ministration of his great office. He had 
no morbid eagerness for conviction ; and 
never permitted, as sometimes occurs, 
an unworthy wrangling between the of- 
ficial power prosecuting, and the zeal of 
the other party defending. His official 
course produced exactly the ends it was 
designed to do. The honest felt safe; 
but there was a trembling and fear in 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



593 



the evil disposed, that the transgressed 
law would be vindicated. 

Very much confined to his profession, 
he never sought office or political eleva- 
tion. Yet he held decided opinions 
upon all political questions, and culti- 
vated acquaintance with all the leading 
subjects of the day; and no man was 
more keenly alive than he to whatever 
occurred, at home or abroad, involv- 
ing the great interests of the civilized 
world. 

Ilis political principles, opinions, 
judgments, were framed upon those of 
the men of the times of Washington. 
From these, to the last, he never 
swerA'ed. The copy was well executed. 
His conversation on subjects of state 
was as instructive and interesting as 
upon professional topics. He had the 
same reach of thought, and exhibited 
the same comprehensive mind, and sa- 
gacity quick and far seeing, with regard 
to political things and men, as he did 
in professional affairs. His influence 
was, therefore, hai'dly the less from the 
fact that he was not actively engaged in 
political life. There was an additional 
weight given to his judgment, arising 
from his being a disinterested beholder 
only. The looker-on can sometimes 
form a more independent and impartial 
opinion of the course and results of the 
contest, than those who are actually 
engaged in it. 

But at length, in June, 1813, he was 
persuaded to accept the post of a Sena- 
tor of the United States, and took his 
seat that montli. He was in Congress 
during the sessions of 1813 and 1814. 
Those were very exciting times; party 
spirit ran very high, and each party put 
forward its most prominent and gifted 
jmen. Both houses were filled by the 
ji greatest intellects of the country. ]\Ir. 
Mason found himself by the side of 
IRufus King, Giles, Goldsborough, Gore, 
I Barbour, Daggett, Hunter, and other 
I distinguished public men. Among men 
|of whatever party, and however much 
leome of them differed from him in opin- 
lion or political principle, there was not 
lone of them all but felt pleasiu-e if he 
Ispoke, and respected his uncommon 



ability and probity, and his fair and up- 
right demeanor in his place and station. 
He took at once his apjiropriate posi- 
tion. Of his associates and admirers 
in the other house, there are some emi- 
nent persons now living who were occa- 
sional listeners to his speeches and 
much struck with his ability; together 
with Pickering, Benson, Pitkin, Stock- 
ton, Lowndes, Gaston, and Ilopkinson, 
now all deceased, who used to flock to 
hear him, and always derived deep 
gratification and instruction from his 
talents, character, and power. 

He resigned his seat in the Senate in 
1817. His published speeches are not 
numerous. The reports of that day 
were far less cor^plete than now, and 
comparatively few debates were pre- 
served and revised. It was a remark- 
able truth, that he always thought far 
too lightly of himself and all his pro- 
ductions. I know that he was with 
difficulty persuaded to prepare his 
speeches in Congress for publication; 
and in this memorial of liimself which 
I have before me he says, with every 
appearance and feeling of sincerity, 
that he ' ' has never acted any important 
part in life, but has felt a deep interest 
in the conduct of others." 

His two main speeches were, first, one 
of great vigor, in the Senate, in Febru- 
ary, 1814, on the Embargo, just before 
that policy was abandoned. The other 
was later, in December, 1815, shortly 
before the peace, on i\Ir. Giles's Con- 
scription Bill, in whicli he discussed the 
subject of the enlistment of minors; and 
the clause authorizing such enlistment 
was struck out upon his motion. 

He was afterwards for several years a 
member of tlie New Hampshire Legisla- 
ture, and assisted in revising the code of 
that State. He paid much attention to 
the subject of the judicature, and per- 
formed his services fully to tlie satisfac- 
tion of the State; and the result of his 
labors was warmly commended. In 
1824 he was again a candidate for the 
Senate of the United States. The elec- 
tion was to be made by the concurrent 
vote of the two brancht-s of tlie Legisla- 
ture. In the popular branch he was 
38 



594 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



chosen by a strong vote. The Senate, 
however, non-concurred; by which means 
the election was lost, — a loss to the coun- 
try, not to him, — by force of circum- 
stances and agencies not now or ever fit 
to be recalled or remembered. 

He continued to reside for many years 
in Portsmouth. His residence in that 
ancient town was a happy one. He was 
happy in his family and in the society of 
the town, surrounded by agreeable neigh- 
bors, respected by the bar and the court, 
and standing at the head of his profes- 
sion. He had a great love of conver- 
sation. He took pleasure in hearing 
others talk, and gave an additional 
charm by the freshness, agreeableness, 
and originality of his own observations. 
His warm hospitality left him never 
alone, and his usefulness was felt as 
much within the walls of the homes, as 
of the tribunals, of Portsmouth. There 
are yet many in that town who love him 
and his; many who witnessed, as chil- 
dren, and recollect, the enthusiasm with 
which he was greeted by their fathers 
and mothers ; and all in New Hampshire 
old enough to remember him will feel 
what we feel here on this occasion. 

Led at last partly by the desire of ex- 
erting his abilities in a larger sphere of 
usefulness, and partly by the fact of the 
residence here of beloved domestic con- 
nections, he came to this city, and en- 
tered upon the performance of his pro- 
fessional duties in 1832. Of the manner 
in which he discharged those duties, this 
court is the most competent judge. You, 
Mr. Chief Justice, and the venerable as- 
sociate who usually occupies a place at 
your right,! have been witnesses of the 
whole. You know the fidelity with 
which he observed his duty to the court, 
as well as his duty to his clients. In 
learning, assiduity, respect for the bench, 
uprightness, and integrity, he stood as an 
example to the bar. You know the gen- 
eral probity and talent with which he 
performed, for so many years, the duty 
of a counsellor of this court. 

I should hardly trust myself to make 
any analysis of Mr. ]\Iason's mind. I 
may be a partial judge. But I may 

1 Mr. Justice Wilde. 



speak of what I myself admire and 
venerate. The characteristics of Mr. 
Mason's mind, as I think, were real 
greatness, strength, and sagacity. He 
was great through strong sense and sound 
judgment, great by comprehensive views 
of things, great by high and elevated 
purposes. Perhaps sometimes he was 
too cautious and refined, and his dis- 
tinctions became too minute; but his 
discrimination arose from a force of 
intellect, and quick-seeing, far-reaching 
sagacity, everywhere discerning his ob- 
ject and pursuing it steadily. Whether 
it was popular or professional, he grasped 
a point and held it with a strong hand. 
He was sarcastic sometimes, but not fre- 
quently; not frothy or petulant, but cool 
and vitriolic. Unfortunate for him on 
whom his sarcasm fell ! 

His conversation was as remarkable as 
his efforts at the bar. It was original, 
fresh, and suggestive; never dull or in- 
different. He never talked when he had 
nothing to say. He was particularly 
agreeable, edifying, and instructive to 
all about him; and this was the charm 
of the social intercourse in which he was 
connected. 

As a professional man, Mr. Mason's 
great ability lay in the department of 
the common law. In this part of juris- 
prudence he was profoundly learned. 
He had drunk copiously from its deepest 
springs; and he had studied with dili- 
gence and success the depai-tures from 
the English conmion law which had 
taken place in this country, either neces- 
sarily, from difference of condition, or 
positiveljs by force of our own statutes. 
In his addresses, both to courts and 
juries, he affected to despise all elo- 
quence, and certainly disdained all or- 
nament; but his efforts, whether ad- 
dressed to one tribunal or the other, 
were marked by a degree of clearness, 
directness, and force not easy to be 
equalled. There were no courts of 
equity, as a separate and distinct juris- 
diction, in New Hampshire, during his 
residence in that State. Yet the equity 
treatises and equity reports were all in 
his library, not "wisely ranged for 
show," but for constant and daily con- 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



595 



Rultation ; because he saw that the com- 
iiioii law itself was growing every day 
more and more liberal; that equity prin- 
ciples were constantly forcing themselves 
into its administration and within its 
rules; that the subjects of litigation in 
tlie courts were constantly becoming, 
more and more, such as escaped from the 
technicalities and the trammels of the 
common law, and offered themselves for 
discussion and decision on the broader 
principles of general jurisprudence. Mr. 
Mason, like other accomplished lawyers, 
and more than most, admired the search- 
ing scrutiny and the high morality of a 
court of equity ; and felt the instruction 
and edification resulting from the peru- 
sal of the judgments of Lord Ilardwicke, 
Lord Eldon, and Sir William Grant, as 
well as of those of great names in our 
own country, not now among the living. 

Among his early associates in New 
Hampshire, there were many distin- 
guished men. Of those now dead were 
Mr. West, Mr. Gordon, Edward St. Loe 
Livermore, Peleg Sprague, William K. 
Atkinson, George Sullivan, Thomas W. 
Thompson, and Amos Kent; the last of 
these having been always a particular 
personal friend. All of these gentlemen 
in their day held high and respectable 
stations, and were eminent as lawyers 
of probity and character. 

Another contemporary and friend of 
Mr. Mason was Mr. Timothy Bigelow, a 
lawj-er of reputation, a man of probity 
and honor, attractive by his conversa- 
tion, and highly agreeable in his social 
intercourse. Mr. Bigelow, we all know, 
was of this State, in which he filled high 
offices with great credit; but, as a coun- 
sellor and advocate, he was constant in 
his attendance on the New Hampshire 
courts. Having known Mr. Bigelow from 
my early youth, I have pleasure in recall- 
ing the mutual regard and friendship 
which I know to have subsisted between 
him and the subject of these remarks. 
1 ought not to omit Mr. Wilson and Mr. 
Betton, in mentioning Mr. Mason's con- 
temporaries at the bar. They were near 
his own age, and both well known as 
lawyers and public men. 

Mr. Mason, while yet in New Hamp- 



shire, found himself engaged in causes 
in which that illustrious man, Samuel 
Dexter, also appeared. The late Mr. 
Justice Stoi-y was still more frequently 
at the bar of that State; and, at a ])eriod 
somewhat eai'lier, your great and distin- 
guished predecessor, Chief Justice Par- 
sons, occasionally presented himself be- 
fore the courts at Portsmouth or Exeter, 
and he is known to have entertained a 
very high regard, personal and profes- 
sional, as well for Mr. ^lason as for the 
late Chief Ju.stice Smith. 

Among those still living, with whom 
Mr. ]Mason was on terms of intimacy, 
and with whom he associated at the bar, 
were Messrs. Plumer, Arthur Livermore, 
Samuel Bell, and Charles H. Atherton. 
If these respected men could be here to- 
day, every one of them would unite with 
us in our tribute of love and veneration 
to his memory. 

But, Sir, political eminence and pro- 
fessional fame fade away and die with 
all things earthly. Nothing of character 
is really permanent but virtue and per- 
sonal worth. These remain. Whatever 
of excellence is wrought into the soul 
itself belongs to both worlds. Real 
goodness does not attach itself merely 
to this life; it points to another world. 
Political or professional reputation can- 
not last for ever ; but a conscience void 
of offence before God and man is an in- 
heritance for eternity. Ileligion, there- 
fore, is a necessary and indispensable 
element in any great human character. 
There is no living without it. Ileligion 
is the tie that connects man with his 
Creator, and holds him to his throne. 
If that tie be all sundered, all broken, 
he floats away, a worthless atom in the 
universe ; its proper attractions all gone, 
its destiny thwarted, and its whole fu- 
ture nothing but darkness, desolation, 
and death. A man with no sense of 
religious duty is he whom the Scriptures 
describe, in such terse but terrific lan- 
guage, as living "without (Jod in the 
world." Such a man is out of his projxir 
being, out of the circle of all his duties, 
out of the circle of all his happiness, and 
away, far, far away, from tlie purposes 
of his creation. 



596 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



A mind like Mr. Mason's, active, 
thoughtful, penetrating, sedate, could 
not but meditate deeply on the condi- 
tion of man below, and feel its respon- 
sibilities. He could not look on this 
mighty system, 

" This universal frame, thus wondrous fair," 

without feeling that it was created and 
upheld by an Intelligence, to which all 
other intelligences must be responsible. 
I am bound to say, that in the course of 
my life I never met with an individual, 
in any profession or condition of life, 
who always spoke, and always thought, 
with such awful reverence of the power 
and presence of God. No irreverence, 
no lightness, even no too familiar allu- 
sion to God and his attributes, ever 
escaped his lips. The very notion of a 
Supreme Being was, with him, made up 
of awe and solemnity. It filled the whole 
of his great mind with the strongest 
emotions. A man like him, with all his 
proper sentiments and sensibilities alive 
in him, must, in this state of existence, 
have something to believe and some- 
thing to hope for; or else, as life is ad- 
vancing to its close and parting, all is 
heart-sinking and oppression. Depend 
upon it, whatever may be the mind of 
an old man, old age is only really happy, 
when, on feeling the enjoyments of this 
world pass away, it begins to lay a 
stronger hold on those of another. 

Mr. Mason's religious sentiments and 
feelings were the crowning glories of his 
character. One, with the strongest mo- 
tives to love and venerate him, and the 
best means of knowledge, says: — 

" So far as my memory extends, he always 
showed a deep conviction of the divine au- 
thority of the Holy Scriptures, of the in- 
stitutions of Christianity, and of the im- 
portance of personal religion. Soon after 
his residence in Boston, he entered tiie com- 
munion of the Church, and has continued 
since regularly to receive the Lord's Supper. 
From that time, he also habitually main- 
tained domestic worship, morning and even- 
ing. The death of two of his sons produced 
a deep impression upon his mind, and di- 
rected it in an increased degree to religious 
subjects. 

" Though he was always reserved in the 



expression of religious feeling, still it has 
been very apparent, for several j'ears, that 
his thoughts dwelt much upon his practical 
religious duties, and especially upon prep- 
aration for another world. Within three or 
four years, he frequently led the conversa- 
tion to such subjects ; and during the year 
past, immediate preparation for his depart- 
ure has been obviously the constant sub- 
ject of his attention. His expressions in 
regard to it were deeply humble ; and, in- 
deed, the very humble manner in which he 
always spoke of himself was most marked. 

" I have observed, of late years, an in- 
creasing tenderness in his feelings and man- 
ner, and a desire to impress his family with 
the conviction that he would not remain 
long with them. His allusions of tliis kind 
have been repeated, even when apparently 
in his usual health ; and they indicated the 
current of his thoughts. 

" He retained his consciousness till within 
a few hours of his death, and made distinct 
replies to every question put to him. He 
was fully aware that his end was near ; and 
in answer to the question, ' Can you now 
rest with firm faith upon the merits of your 
Divine Redeemer "^ ' he said, ' I trust I do : 
upon what else can I rest '. ' 

" At another time, in reply to a similar 
question, he said, ' Of course, I have no 
other ground of hope.' We did not often 
speak to liim during those last three days, 
but had no doubt that he was entirely con- 
scious of his state, knew that his family 
were all near, and that his mind was free 
from anxiety. He could not speak with 
ease, and we were unwilling to cause him the 
pain of exertion. His whole life, marked 
by uniform greatness, wisdom, and integ- 
rity, his deep humility, his profound rev- 
erence for the Divine Majesty, his habitual 
preparation for death, his humble trust in 
his Saviour, left nothing to be desired for 
the consolation of his family under this 
great loss. He was gradually prepared for 
his departure. His last years were passed 
in calm retirement ; and he died as he 
wished to die, with his faculties unimpaired, 
without great pain, with his family around 
his bed, the precious promises of the Gospel 
before his mind, without lingering disease, 
and yet not suddenly called away." 

Such, Mr. Chief Justice, was the 
life, and such the death, of Jeremiah 
Mason. For one, I could jwur out my 
heart like water, at the recollection of 
his virtues and his friendship, and in the 



JEREMIAH MASON. 



597 



feeling of his loss. I would embalm his 
memory in my best affections. His per- 
sonal regard, so long continued to me, I 
esteem one of the greatest blessings of 
my life; and I hope that it may be 
known hereafter, that, witliout inter- 
mission or coolness through many years, 
and until he descended to his grave, Mr. 
Mason and mj'self were friends. 

Mr. Mason died in old age; not by a 
violent stroke from the hand of death, 
not by a sudden rupture of the ties of 
nature, but by a gradual wearing out of 
his constitution. lie enjoyed through 
life, indeed, remarkable health. He 
took competent exercise, loved the open 
air, and, avoiding all extreme theories 
or practice, controlled his conduct and 
habits of life by the rules of prudence 



and moderation. His death was there- 
fore not unlike that described by the 
angel, admonishing Adam: — 

" I yield it just, said Adam, and submit. 
But is there yet no other way, besides 
These jiaiiiful passages, how we may come 
To deatii, and mix with our connatural dust"? 

There is, said Micliaul, if thou well observe 
The rule of 'Not too much,' by temperance 

taught, 
In what thou eat'st and drink'st; seeking 

from thence 
Due nourishment, not gluttonous delight; 
Till many years over thy head return, 
So mayst thou live; till, like ripe fruit, thou 

drop 
Into th_v mother's lap; or be with ease 
Gathered, not harshly plucked; for death 

mature. 
This is old age." 



KOSSUTH. 

FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED IN BOSTON, ON THE 7th OF NOVEMBER, 1849, 
AT A FESTIVAL OF THE NATIVES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ESTABLISHED IN 
MASSACHUSETTS. 



We have all had our sympathies much 
enlisted in the Hungarian effort for lib- 
erty. We have all vv^ept at its fail- 
ure. We thought we saw a more ra- 
tional hope of establishing free gov- 
ernment in Hungary than in any other 
part of Europe, where the question 
has been in agitation within the last 
twelve months. But despotic power 
from abroad intervened to suppress that 
hope. 

And, Gentlemen, what will come of 
it I do not know. For my part, at this 
moment, I feel more indignant at recent 
events connected with Hungary than at 
all those which passed in her struggle for 
liberty. I see that the Emperor of Rus- 
sia demands of Turkey that the noble 
Kossuth and his companions shall be 
given up, to be dealt with at his pleas- 
ure. And I see that this demand is 
made in derision of the established law 
of nations. Gentlemen, there is some- 
thing on earth greater than arbitrary or 
despotic power. The lightning has its 
power, and the whirlwind has its power, 
and the earthquake has its power; but 
there is something among men more 
capable of shaking despotic thrones 
than lightning, whirlwind, or earth- 
quake, and that is, the excited and 
aroused indignation of the whole civil- 
ized world. Gentlemen, the Emperor 
of Russia holds himself to be bound by 
the law of nations, from the fact that 
he negotiates with civilized nations, and 
that he forms alliances and ti'eaties with 



them. He professes, in fact, to live in 
a civilized age, and to govern an en- 
lightened nation. I say, that if, under 
these circumstances, he shall perpetrate 
so great a violation of national law as 
to seize these Hungarians and to exe- 
cute them, he will stand as a criminal 
and malefactor in the view of the pub- 
lic law of the world. The whole world 
will be the tribunal to try him, and he 
must appear before it, and hold up his 
hand, and plead, and abide its judg- 
ment. 

The Emperor of Russia is the su- 
preme lawgiver in his own country, 
and, for aught I know, the executor of 
that law also. But, thanks be to God, 
he is not the supreme lawgiver or exec- 
utor of national law, and every offence 
against that is an offence against the 
rights of the civilized world. If he 
breaks that law in the case of Turkey, 
or any other case, the whole world has a 
right to call him out, and to demand his 
punishment. 

Our rights as a nation, like those of 
other nations, are held under the sanc- 
tion of national law ; a law which be- 
comes more important from day to day ; 
a law which none, who profess to agree 
to it, are at liberty to violate. Nor let 
him imagine, nor let any one imagine, 
that mere force can subdue the general 
sentiment of mankind. It is much 
more likely to diffuse that sentiment, 
and to destroy the power which he most 
desires to establish and secure. 



KOSSUTH. 



599 



Gentlemen, the bones of poor John 
Wickliffe were dug out of his grave, 
seventy years after his death, and burnt 
for his heresy; and his ashes were 
thrown upon a river in Warwickshire. 
Some prophet of that day said: 

" The Avon to the Severn runs, 
The Severn to the sea, 
And Wic'kliffe's dust shall spread abroad. 
Wide as the waters be." 

Gentlemen, if the blood of Kossuth 
is taken by an absolute, unqualified, 
unjustifiable violation of national law, 
what will it appease, what will it pacify? 
It will mingle with the earth, it will mix 
with the waters of the ocean, the whole 
civilized world will snuff it in the air, 
and it will return with awful retribution 
on the heads of those violators of na- 



tional law and imiversal justice. I can- 
not say when, or in what form; but 
depend upon it, that, if such an act take 
place, then thrones, and principalities, 
and powers, must look out for the con- 
sequences. 

And now, Gentlemen, let us do our 
part ; let us understand the position in 
which we stand, as the great republic of 
the world, at the most interesting era 
of its history. Let us consider the mis- 
sion and the destiny which Providence 
seems to have designed for us, and let 
us so take care of our own conduct, that, 
with irreproachable hearts, and with 
hands void of offence, we may stand up 
whenever and wherever called upon, 
and, with a voice not to be disregarded, 
say. This shall not be done, at least not 
without our protest. 



THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 

7th of march, 1850. 



[On the 25th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay 
submitted a series of resolutions to the Sen- 
ate, on the subject of slavery, in connec- 
tion with the various questions which had 
arisen in consequence of the acquisition of 
Mexican territory. These resolutions fur- 
nished the occasion of a protracted debate. 
On Wednesday, the 6th of March, Mr. 
Walker of Wisconsin engaged in tlie dis- 
cussion, but, owing to the length of time 
taken up by repeated interruptions, he was 
unable to finish his argument. In the mean 
time it had been generally understood that 
Mr. Webster would, at an early day, take 
an opportunity of addressing the Senate on 
the present aspe'ct of the slavery question, 
on the dangers to the Union of the e.xisting 
agitation, and on the terms of honorable 
adjustment. In the expectation of hearing 
a speech from him on these all-important 
topics, an immense audience assembled in 
the Senate-Chamber at an early hour of 
Thursday, the 7th of March. The floor, tlie 
galleries, and the antechambers of the Sen- 
ate were crowded, and it was with diiBculty 
that the members themselves were able to 
force their way to their seats. 

At twelve o'clock the special order of the 
day was announced, and the Vice-President 
stated that Mr. Walker of Wisconsin was 
entitled to the floor. That gentleman, liow- 
ever, rose and said : — 

"Mr. President, this vast audience has not 
come together to hear me, and there is but one 
man, in my opinion, who can assemble such an 
audience. They expect to hear him, and I feel 
it to be my dut^', therefore, as it is my pleasure, 
to give the floor to the Senator from Massachu- 
setts. I understand it is immaterial to him upon 
which of these questions he speaks, and there- 
fore I will not move to postpone the special 
order." 

Mr. Webster then rose, and, after making 
his acknowledgments to the Senators from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Walker) and New York 
(Mr. Seward) for their courtesy in yielding 
the floor to him, delivered the following 
speech, which, in consideration of its ciiar- 



acter and of the manner in which it was re- 
ceived throughout the country, has been 
entitled a speech for " the Constitution and 
the Union." In the pamphlet edition it was 
dedicated in the following terras to the peo- 
ple of Massachusetts : — 

WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT, 

AND THE DEEPEST SENSE OF OBLIGATION, 

I DEDICATE THIS SPEECH 

TO THE 

PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

"His ego gratiora dictu ai-ia esse scio; sed 
me vera pro gratis loqui, etsi meum inge- 

NIUM NON MONERET, NEOESSITAS COGIT. VELLEM, 
EQUIDEM, VOBIS PLACERE; SED MULTO MALO VOS 
SALVOS ESSE, QUALICUMQUE ERGA ME ANIMO FUTLRI 
ESTiS " 

DANIEL WEBSTER.] 

Mr. President, — I wish to speak 
to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor 
as a Northern man, but as an American, 
and a member of the Senate of the 
United States. It is fortunate that there 
is a Senate of the United States ; a body 
not yet moved from its propriety, not 
lost to a just sense of its own dignity 
and its own high responsibilities, and a 
body to which the country looks, with 
confidence, for wise, moderate, patri- 
otic, and healing counsels. It is not to 
be denied that we live in the midst of 
strong agitations, and are surrounded 
by very considerable dangers to our in- 
stitutions and government. The impris- 
oned winds are let loose. The East, the 
North, and the stormy South combine 
to throw the whole sea into commotion, 
to toss its billows to the skies, and dis- 
close its profoundest depths. I do not 
affect to regard myself, Mr. President, 



SPEECH OF THE 7tii OF MARCH, 1850. 



601 



as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in 
this combat witli the political elements; 
but I have a duty to perform, and I 
mean to perform it with fidelity, not 
"without a sense of existing dangers, but 
not without hope. I have a part to act, 
not for my own security or safety, for I 
am looking out for no fragment upon 
which to lloat away from the wreck, if 
wreck there must be, but for the good 
of the whole, and the preservation of 
all; and there is that which will keep 
me to my duty during this struggle, 
whether the sun and the stars shall ap- 
pear, or shall not appear, for many days. 
I speak to-day for the preservation of 
the Union. " Hear me for my cause." 
I speak to-day, out of a solicitous and 
anxious heart, for the restoration to the 
country of that quiet and that harmony 
which make the blessings of this Union 
so rich, and so dear to us all. These 
are the topics that I propose to myself 
to discuss; these are the motives, and 
the sole motives, that influence me in 
the wish to communicate my opinions 
to the Senate and the country; and if I 
can do any thing, however little, for the 
promotion of these ends, I shall have 
accomplished all that I expect. 

Mr. President, it may not be amiss to 
recur very briefly to the events which, 
equally sudden and extraordinary, have 
brought the countiy into its present 
political condition. In May, 1846, the 
United States declared war against Mex- 
ico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, 
entered the provinces of that republic, 
met and defeated all her troops, pene- 
trated her mountain passes, and occu- 
pied her capital. The marine force of 
the United States took possession of her 
forts and her towns, on the Atlantic and 
on the Pacific. In less than two years 
a treaty was negotiated, by which Mex- 
ico ceded to the United States a vast 
territory, extending seven or eight hun- 
dred miles along the shores of the Pa- 
cific, and reaching back over tlie moun- 
tains, and across the desert, until it 
joins the frontier of the State of Texas. 
It so happened, in the distracted and 
feeble condition of the Mexican govern- 
ment, that, before the declaration of war 



by the United States again.st Mexico had 
become known in California, the jieojile 
of California, under the lead of Amer- 
ican officers, overthrew the existing Mex- 
ican provincial government, and raised 
au independent flag. When the news 
arrived at San Francisco that war had 
been declared by the United States 
against Mexico, this independent flag 
was pulled down, and the stars and 
stripes of this Union hoisted in its stead. 
So, Sir, before the war was over, the 
forces of the United States, military and 
naval, had possession of San Francisco 
and Upper California, and a great rush 
of emigrants from various parts of the 
world took place into California in 1846 
and 18-17. But now behold another 
wonder. 

In January of 1848, a party of Mor- 
mons made a discovery of an extraordi- 
narily rich mine of gold, or rather of a 
great quantity of gold, hardly projjcr to 
be called a mine, for it was spread near 
the surface, on the lower part of the 
south, or American, branch of the Sac- 
ramento. They attempted to conceal 
their discovery for some tijiie ; but soon 
another discovery of gold, perhaps of 
greater importance, was made, on an- 
other part of the American branch of 
the Sacramento, and near Sutter's Fort, 
as it is called. The fame of these dis- 
coveries spread far and wide. They in- 
flamed more and more the spirit of emi- 
gration towards California, which had 
already been excited ; and adventurers 
crowded into the country by hundreds, 
and flocked towards the Bay of San 
Francisco. This, as 1 have said, took 
place in the winter and spring of 1848. 
The digging commenced in the spring 
of that year, and from tliat time to this 
the work of searching for gold has been 
]irosecuted with a success not heretofore 
known in the history of this globe. You 
recollect. Sir, how incredulous at first 
the American public was at the accounts 
which reached us of these discoveries ; 
but we all know, now, that these ac- 
counts received, and continue to receive, 
daily confirmation, and down to the 
present moment I sup])OHe the assurance 
is as strong, after the experience of these 



602 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



several months, of the existence of de- 
posits of gold apparently inexhaustible 
in the regions near San Francisco, in 
California, as it was at any period of the 
earlier dates of the accounts. 

It so happened, Sir, that although, 
after the return of peace, it became a 
very important subject for legislative 
consideration and legislative decision to 
provide a proper territorial government 
for California, yet differences of opin- 
ion between the two houses of Congress 
prevented the establishment of any 
such territorial government at the last 
session. Under this state of things, 
the inhabitants of California, already 
amounting to a considerable number, 
thought it to be their duty, in the 
summer of last year, to establish a local 
government. Under the proclamation 
of General Riley, the people chose dele- 
gates to a convention, and that conven- 
tion met at Monterey. It formed a 
constitution for the State of California, 
which, being referred to the people, was 
adopted by them in their primary 
assemblages. Desirous of immediate 
connection with the United States, its 
Senators were appointed and Represent- 
atives chosen, who have come hither, 
bringing with them the authentic con- 
stitution of the State of California ; and 
they now present themselves, asking, 
in behalf of their constituents, that it 
may be admitted into this Union as one 
of the United States. This constitu- 
tion, Sir, contains an express prohibi- 
tion of slavery, or involuntary servitude, 
in the State of California. It is said, 
and I suppose truly, that, of the mem- 
bers who composed that convention, 
some sixteen were natives of, and had 
been residents in, the slave-holding 
States, about twenty-two were from the 
non-slaveholding States, and the remain- 
ing ten members were either native Cal- 
ifornians or old settlers in that country. 
This prohibition of slavery, it is said, 
was inserted with entire unanimity. 

It is this circumstance. Sir, the pro- 
hibition of slavery, which has con- 
tributed to raise, I do not say it has 
wholly raised, the dispute as to the pro- 
priety of the admission of California 



into the Union under this constitution. 
It is not to be denied, Mr. President, 
nobody thinks of denying, that, what- 
ever reasons were assigned at the com- 
mencement of the late war with Mexico, 
it was prosecuted for the purpose of the 
acquisition of territory, and under the 
alleged argument that the cession of 
territoiy was the only form in which 
proper compensation could be obtained 
by the United States, from Mexico, for 
the various claims and demands which 
the people of this country had against 
that government. At any rate, it wiU 
be found that President Polk's message, 
at the commencement of the session of 
December, 1847, avowed that the war 
was to be prosecuted until some acqui- 
sition of territory should be made. As 
the acquisition was to be south of the 
line of the United States, in warm cli- 
mates and countries, it was naturally, 
I suppose, expected by the South, that 
whatever acquisitions were made in that 
region would be added to the slave- 
holding portion of the United States. 
Very little of accurate information was 
possessed of the real physical character, 
either of California or New Mexico, and 
events have not turned out as was ex- 
pected. Both California and New 
Mexico are likely to come in as free 
States; and therefore some degree of 
disappointment and surprise has re- 
sulted. In other words, it is obvious 
that the question which has so long 
harassed the country, and at some times 
very seriously alarmed the minds of 
wise and good men, has come upon us 
for a fresh discussion, — the question 
of slavery in these United States. 

Now, Sir, I propose, perhaps at the 
expense of some detail and consequent 
detention of the Senate, to review his- 
torically this question, which, partly in 
consequence of its own importance, and 
partly, perhaps mostly, in consequence 
of the manner in which it has been dis- 
cussed in different portions of the coun- 
try, has been a source of so much aliena- 
tion and unkind feeling between them. 

We all know. Sir, that slavery has 
existed in the world from time immemo- 
rial. There was slavery, in the earliest 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



603 



periods of history, among the Oriental 
nations. There was shivery among the 
Jews; the theocratic government of tliat 
people issued no injunction against it. 
There was sLavery among the Greeks; 
and the ingenious philosophy of the 
Greeks found, or sought to find, a justi- 
fication for it exactly upon the grounds 
which have been assumed for such a 
justification in this country; that is, a 
natural and original difference among 
the races of mankind, and the inferiority 
of the black or colored race to the white. 
The Greeks justified their system of 
slavery upon that idea, precisely. They 
held the African and some of the Asiatic 
tribes to be inferior to the white race; 
but they did not show, I think, by any 
close process of logic, that, if this were 
true, the more intelligent and the stronger 
had therefore a right to subjugate the 
weaker. 

The more manly philosophy and juris- 
prudence of the Rofiians placed the jus- 
tification of slavery on entirely different 
grounds. The Roman juiists, from the 
first and down to the fall of the empire, 
admitted that slavery was against the 
natural law, by which, as they main- 
tained, all men, of whatsoever clime, 
color, or capacity, were equal ; but they 
justified slavery, first, upon the ground 
and authoiity of the law of nations, 
arguing, and arguing truly, that at that 
day the conventional law of nations ad- 
mitted that captives in war, whose lives, 
according to the notions of the times, 
were at the absolute disposal of the 
captors, might, in exchange for exemp- 
tion from death, be made slaves for life, 
and that such servitude might descend 
to their posterity. The jurists of Rome 
also maintained, that, by the civil law, 
there might be servitude or slavery, 
personal and hereditary; first, by the 
voluntary act of an individual, who 
might sell himself into slavery; secondly, 
by his being reduced into a state of 
slavery by his creditors, in satisfaction 
of his debts; and, thirdly, by being 
placed in a state of servitude or slavery 
for crime. At the introduction of Chris- 
tianity, the Roman world was full of 
slaves, and I suppose there is to be found 



no injunction against that relation be- 
tween man and man in the teachings of 
the (Jospel of Jesus Christ or of any of 
his Apostles. The object of the instruc- 
tion imparted to mankind by the Founder 
of Christianity was to touch the heart, 
purify the soul, and improve the lives 
of individual men. That object went 
directly to the first fountain of all the 
political and social relations of the hu- 
man race, as well as of all true religious 
feeling, the individual heart and mind 
of man. 

Now, Sir, upon the general nature and 
influence of slavery there exists a wide 
difference of opinion between the north- 
ern portion of this country and the 
southern. It is said on the one side, 
that, although not the subject of any 
injunction or direct prohibition in the 
New Testament, slavery is a wrong; 
that it is founded merely in the right of 
the strongest; and that it is an oppres- 
sion, like unjust wars, like all those con- 
flicts by which a powerful nation subjects 
a weaker to its will; and that, in its 
nature, whatever may be said of it in 
the modifications which have taken 
place, it is not according to the meek 
spirit of the Gospel. It is not " kindly 
affectioned " ; it does not "seek an- 
other's, and not its own"; it does not 
" let the oppressed go free." These are 
sentiments that are cherished, and of late 
with greatly augmented force, among the 
people of the Northern States. They 
have taken hold of the religious senti- 
ment of that part of the country, as they 
have, more or less, taken hold of the re- 
ligious feelings of a considerable portion 
of niankind. The South, upon the other 
side, having been accustomed to this re- 
lation between the two races all their 
lives, from their birth, having been 
taught, in general, to treat the subjects 
of this bondage with care and kindness, 
and I believe, in general, feeling great 
kindness for them, have not taken the 
view of the subject which I have men- 
tioned. There are thousands of relig- 
ious men, with consciences as tender as 
any of their brethren at the North, who 
do not see the unlawfulness of slavery; 
and there are more thousands, perhaps, 



604 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



that, whatsoever they may think of it in 
its origin, and as a matter depending 
upon natural right, yet take things as 
they are, and, finding slavery to be an 
established relation of the society in 
which they live, can see no way in 
which, let their opinions on the abstract 
question be what they may, it is in the 
power of the present generation to relieve 
themselves from this relation. And 
candor obliges me to say, that I believe 
they are just as conscientious, many of 
them, and the religious people, all of 
them, as they are at the North who 
hold different opinions. 

The honorable Senator from South 
Carolina ^ the other day alluded to the 
separation of that great religious com- 
munity, the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
That separation was brought about by 
differences of opinion upon this particu- 
lar subject of slavery. I felt great con- 
cern, as that dispute went on, about the 
result. I was in hopes that the differ- 
ence of opinion might be adjusted, be- 
cause I looked upon that religious de- 
nomination as one of the great props 
of religion and morals throughout the 
whole country, from Maine to Georgia, 
and westward to our utmost western 
boundary. The result was against my 
wishes and against my hopes. I have 
read all their proceedings and all their 
arguments; but I have never yet been 
able to come to the conclusion that there 
was any real ground for that separation ; 
in other words, that any good could be 
produced by that separation. I must 
say I think there was some want of 
candor and charity. Sir, when a ques- 
tion of this kind seizes on the religious 
sentiments of mankind, and comes to be 
discussed in religious assemblies of the 
clergy and laity, there is always to be 
expected, or always to be feared, a great 
degree of excitement. It is in the 
nature of man, manifested by his whole 
history, that religious disputes are apt 
to become warm in proportion to the 
strength of the convictions which men 
entertain of the magnitude of the ques- 
tions at issue. In all such disputes, 
there will sometimes be found men with 

1 Mr. Calhoun. 



whom every thing is absolute ; absolute- 
ly wrong, or absolutely right. They see 
the riglit clearly ; they think others ought 
so to see it, and they are disposed to es- 
tablish a broad line of distinction be- 
tween what is right and what is wrong. 
They are not seldom willing to establish 
that line rt^Don their own convictions of 
truth and justice ; and are ready to mark 
and guard it by placing along it a series 
of dogmas, as lines of boundary on the 
earth's surface are marked by posts and 
stones. There are men who, with clear 
perceptions, as they think, of their own 
duty, do not see how too eager a pursuit 
of one duty may involve them in the 
violation of others, or how too warm an 
embracement of one truth may lead to 
a disregard of other truths equally im- 
portant. As I heard it stated strongly, 
not many days ago, these persons are 
disposed to moiant upon some particular 
duty, as upon a war-horse, and to di'ive 
furiously on and upon and over all other 
duties that may stand in the way. There 
are men who, in reference to disputes of 
that sort, are of opinion that human 
duties may be ascertained with the ex- 
actness of mathematics. They deal 
with morals as with mathematics ; and 
they think what is right may be dis- 
tinguished from what is wrong with 
the precision of an algebraic equation. 
They have, therefore, none too much 
charity towards others who differ from 
them. They are apt, too, to think that 
nothing is good but what is perfect, and 
that there are no compromises or modi- 
fications to be made in consideration of 
difference of opinion or in deference to 
other men's judgment. If their per- 
spicacious vision enables them to detect 
a spot on the face of the sun, they think 
that a good reason why the sun should 
be struck down from heaven. They 
prefer the chance of running into utter 
darkness to living in heavenly light, if 
that heavenly light be not absolutely 
without any imperfection. There are 
impatient men ; too impatient always to 
give heed to the admonition of St. Paul, 
that we are not to "do evil that good 
may come"; too impatient to wait for 
I the slow progress of moral causes in the 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



605 



improvement of mankind. They do not 
remember tliat the doctrines and the 
miracles of Jesus Christ have, in eigh- 
teen hundred years, converted only a 
small portion of the human race; and 
among the nations that are converted to 
Christianity, they forget how many vices 
and crimes, public and private, still pre- 
vail, and that many of them, public 
crimes especially, which are so clearly 
oifences against the Christian religion, 
pass without exciting particular indig- 
nation. Thus wars are waged, and 
unjust wars. I do not deny that there 
may be just wars. There certainly are; 
but it was the remark of an eminent 
person, not many years ago, on the 
other side of the Atlantic, that it is one 
of the greatest reproaches to human 
nature that wars are sometimes just. 
The defence of nations sometimes causes 
a just war against the injustice of other 
nations. In this state of sentiment 
upon the general nature of slavery lies 
the cause of a great part of those un- 
happy divisions, exasperations, and re- 
proaches which find vent and support in 
different parts of the Union. 

But we must view things as they are. 
Slavery does exist in the United States. 
It did exist in the States before the 
adoption of this Constitution, and at 
that time. Let us, therefore, consider 
for a moment what was the state of sen- 
timent, North and South, in regard to 
slavery, at the time this Constitution 
was adopted. A remarkable change has 
taken place since ; but what did the wise 
and great men of all parts of the country 
think of slavery then ? In what esti- 
mation did they hold it at the time when 
this Constitution was adopted? It will 
be found. Sir, if we will carry ourselves 
by historical research back to that day, 
and ascertain men's opinions by authen- 
tic records still existing among us, that 
there was then no diversity of opinion 
between the North and the Soutii upon 
the subject of slavery. It will be found 
that both parts of the country held it 
, equally an evil, — a moral and political 
evil. It will not be found that, either 
at the Nortli or at the South, there was 
much, though there was some, invective 



against slavery as inhuman and cruel. 
Tlie great ground of objection to it was 
political; that it weakened the social 
fabric; that, taking the place of free 
labor, society became less strong and j 
labor less productive ; and therefore we i 
find from all the eminent men of the i 
time the clearest expression of their | 
opinion that slavery is an evil. They ' 
ascribed its existence here, not without 
truth, and not without some acerbity of 
temper and force of language, to the 
injurious policy of the mother country, 
who, to favor the navigator, had entailed 
these evils upon the Colonies. I need 
hardly refer. Sir, particularly to the pub- 
lications of the day. They are matters 
of history on the record. The eminent 
men, the most eminent men, and nearly 
all the conspicuous politicians of the 
South, held the same sentiments, — that 
slavei-y was an evil, a blight, a scourge, 
and a curse. There are no terms of 
reprobation of slavery so vehement in 
the North at that day as in the South. 
The North was not so much excited 
against it as the South ; and the reason 
is, I suppose, that there was much less 
of it at the North, and the people did 
not see, or think they saw, the evils 
so prominently as they were seen, or 
thought to be seen, at the South. 

Then, Sir, when this Constitution was 
framed, this was the light in which the 
Federal Convention viewed it. That 
body reflected the judgment and senti- 
ments of the great men of the South. 
A member of the other house, whom I 
luive not the honor to know, has, in a 
recent speech, collected extracts from 
these public documents. They prove 
the truth of what 1 am saying, and the 
question then was, how to deal with it, 
and how to deal with it as an evil. 
They came to this general result. They 
thougiit that slavery could not be con- 
tinued in the country if the importation 
of slaves were made to cease, and there- 
fore they provided that, after a certain 
period, the importation might be pre- 
vented l)y the act of the new govern- 
ment. The period of twenty years was 
proposed by some gentleman from the 
North, I think, and many members of 



606 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



the Convention from the South opposed 
it as being too long. Mr. Madison 
especially was somewhat warm against 
it. He said it would bring too much of 
this mischief into the country to allow 
the importation of slaves for such a 
period. Because we must take along 
with us, in the whole of this discussion, 
when we are considering the sentiments 
and opinions in which the constitutional 
provision originated, that the conviction 
of all men was, that, if the importation 
of slaves ceased, the white race would 
multiply faster than the black race, and 
that slavery would therefore gradually 
wear out and expire. It may not be 
improper here to allude to that, I had 
almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr. 
Madison. You observe. Sir, that the 
term slavCy or slavery, is not used in the 
Constitution. The Constitution does 
not require that "fugitive slaves " shall 
be delivered up. It requires that per- 
sons held to service in one State, and 
escaping into another, shall be delivered 
up. Mr. Madison opposed the intro- 
duction of the term slave, or slavery, into 
the Constitution ; for he said that he did 
not wish to see it recognized by the Con- 
I stitution of the United States of America 
that there could be property in men. 

Now, Sir, all this took place in the 
Convention in 1787; but connected with 
this, concurrent and contemporaneous, 
is another important transaction, not 
sufficiently attended to. The Conven- 
tion for framing this Constitution as- 
sembled in Philadelphia in May, and 
sat until September, 1787. During all 
that time the Congress of the United 
i States was in session at New York. It 
'was a matter of design, as we know, 
jthat the Convention should not assemble 
in the same city where Congress was 
holding its sessions. Almost all the 
public men of the country, therefore, of 
distinction and eminence, were in one or 
the other of these two assemblies; and I 
think it happened, in some instances, 
that the same gentlemen were mem- 
/ bers of both bodies. If I mistake not, 
such was the case with Mr. Rufus King, 
then a member of Congress from Massa- 
chusetts. Now, at the very time when 



the Convention in Philadelphia was 
framing this Constitution, the Congress 
in New York was framing the Ordinance 
of 1787, for the organization and govern- 
ment of the territory northwest of the 
Ohio. They passed that Ordinance on 
the 13th of July, 1787, at New York, 
the very month, perhaps the very day, 
on which these questions about the im- 
portation of slaves and the character of 
slavery were debated in the Convention 
at Philadelphia. So far as we can now 
learn, there was a perfect concurrence 
of opinion between these two bodies; 
and it resulted in this Ordinance of 
1787, excluding slavery from all the ter- 
ritory over which the Congress of the 
United States had jurisdiction, and that 
was all the territory northwest of the 
Ohio. Three years before, Virginia and 
other States had made a cession of that 
great territory to the United States ; and 
a most munificent act it was. I never 
reflect upon it without a disposition to do 
honor and justice, and justice would be 
the highest honor, to Virginia, for the 
cession of her northwestern territory. 
I will say, Sir, it is one of her fairest 
claims to the respect and gratitude of 
the country, and that, perhaps, it is only 
second to that other claim which belongs 
to her, — that from her counsels, and 
from the intelligence and patriotism of 
her leading statesmen, proceeded the first 
idea put into practice of the formation 
of a general constitution of the United 
States. The Ordinance of 1787 applied 
to the whole territory over which the 
Congress of the United States had juris- 
diction. It was adopted two years be- 
fore the Constitution of the United 
States went into operation ; because the 
Ordinance took effect immediately on 
its passage, while the Constitution of 
the United States, having been framed, ; 
was to be sent to the States to be ( 
adopted by their conventions ; and then 
a government was to be organized under 
it. This Ordinance, then, was in opera- 
tion and force when the Constitution 
was adopted, and the government put 
in motion, in April, 1789. 

]\Ir. President, three things are quite 
clear as historical truths. One is, that 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



607 



thei-e was an expectation that, on the 
ceasing of the importation of slaves 
from Africa, slavery would begin to run 
out here. That was hoped and expected. 
Another is, that, as far as there was any 
power in Congress to prevent the spread 
of slavery in the United States, that 
power was executed in the most absolute 
manner, and to the fullest extent. An 
honorable member,^ wliose health does 
not allow him to be here to-day — 

A Senator. He is here. 

I am very happy to hear that he is ; 
may he long be here, and in the enjoy- 
ment of health to serve his country! 
The honorable member said, the other 
day, that he considered this Ordinance 
as the first in the series of measures cal- 
culated to enfeeble the South, and de- 
prive them of their just participation in 
the benefits and privileges of this gov- 
ernment. He says, very properly, that 
it was enacted under the old Confedera- 
tion, and before this Constitution went 
into effect; but my present purpose is 
only to say, Mr. President, that it was 
established with the entire and unani- 
mous concurrence of the whole South. 
Why, there it stands ! The vote of every 
State in the Union was unanimous in 
favor of the Ordinance, with the excep- 
tion of a single individual vote, and that 
individual vote was given by a Northern 
man. This Ordinance prohibiting sla- 
very for ever northwest of the Oliio has 
the hand and seal of every Southern 
member in Congress. It was therefore 
no aggression of the North on the South. 
The other and third clear historical truth 
is, that the Convention meant to leave 
slavery in the States as they found it, 
entirely under the authority and control 
of the States themselves. 

This was the state of things, Sir, and 
this the state of opinion, under which 
those very important matters were ar- 
ranged, and those three important things 
done; that is, the establishment of the 
Constitution of the United States with 
a recognition of .slavery as it existed in 
the States; the establishment of the 
ordinance for the government of the 
1 Mr. Calhoun. 



Northwestern Territory, prohibiting, to 
the full extent of all territory owned by 
the United States, the introduction of 
slavery into that territory, while leaving 
to the States all power over slavery in 
their own limits; and creating a power, 
in the new government, to put an end 
to the importation of slaves, after a lim- 
ited period. Tliere was entire coinci- 
dence and concurrence of sentiment 
between the North and the South, upon 
all these questions, at the period of the 
adoption of the Constitution. But opin- 
ions, Sir, have changed, greatly changed; 
changed North and changed South. 
Slavery is not regarded in the South 
now as it was then. I see an honorable 
member of this body paying me the 
honor of listening to my remarks;^ he 
brings to my mind. Sir, freshly and 
vividly, what 1 have learned of his great 
ancestor, so much distinguished in his 
day and generation, so worthy to be 
succeeded by so worthy a grandson, and 
of the sentiments he -expressed in the 
Convention in Philadelphia. '■^ 

Here we may pause. There was, if 
not an entire unanimity, a general con- 
currence of sentiment running through 
the whole community, and especially en- 
tertained by the eminent men of all 
parts of the country. But soon a change 
began, at the North and the South, and 
a diiference of opinion shoM'ed itself; the 
North growing much more wai'm and 
strong against slavery, and the South 
grow ing much more warm and .strong in 
its support. Sir, there is no generation 
of mankind whose opinions are not sub- 
ject to be influenced by what appear to 
them to be their present emergent and 
exigent interests. I impute to the South 
no particularly .selfish view in tlie change 
which has come over her. I impute to 
her certainly no dishonest view. All 
that has jiappened has been natural. It 
has followed those causes which always 
influence the hiunan mind and operate 
upon it. What, then, have been the 
causes which have created so new a feel- 
ing in favor of slavery in the South, 

1 Mr. Mason of Virfjinia. 

2 See Madison Tapers, Vol. III. pp. 1390, 
1428, et seq. 



608 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



which have changed the whole nomen- 
clature of the South on that subject, so 
that, from being thought and described 
in the terms I have mentioned and will 
not repeat, it has now become an insti- 
tution, a cherished institution, in that 
quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great 
religious, social, and moral blessing, as I 
think I have heard it latterly spoken of? 
I suppose this. Sir, is owing to the rapid 
growth and sudden extension of the cot- 
ton plantations of the South. So far as 
any motive consistent with honor, jus- 
tice, and general judgment could act, it 
was the cotton interest that gave a new 
desire to promote slavery, to spread it, 
and to use its labor. I again say that 
this change was produced by causes 
which must always produce like effects. 
The whole interest of the South became 
connected, more or less, with the exten- 
sion of slavery. If we look back to the 
history of the commerce of this country 
in the early years of this government, 
what were our exports? Cotton was 
hardly, or but to a very limited extent, 
known. In 1791 the first parcel of cot- 
ton of the growth of the United States 
was exported, and amounted only to 
19,200 pounds. 1 It has gone on in- 
creasing rapidly, until the whole crop 
may now, perhaps, in a season of great 
product and high prices, amount to a 
hundred millions of dollars. In the 
years I have mentioned, there was more 
of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, 
more of almost every article of export 
from the South, than of cotton. When 
Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1791 with 
England, it is evident from the twelfth 
article of the treaty, which was sus- 
pended by the Senate, that he did not 
know that cotton was exported at all 
from the United States. 

Well, Sir, we know what followed. 
The age of cotton became the golden 
age of our Southern brethren. It grati- 
fied their desire for improvement and 
accumulation, at the same time that it 

1 Seybert's Statistics, p. 92. A siti.tII parrel 
of cotton found its way to Liverpool from the 
United States in 1784, and was refused admis- 
sion, on the ground that it could not be the 
growth of the United States. 



excited it. The desire grew by what it 
fed upon, and there soon came to be an 
eagerness for other ten-itory, a new area 
or new areas for the cultivation of the cot- 
ton crop; and measures leading to this 
result were brought about rapidly, one 
after another, under the lead of Southern 
men at the head of the government, 
they having a majority in both branches 
of Congress to accomplish their ends. 
The honorable member from South Caro- 
lina ^ observed that there has been a 
majority all along in favor of the North. 
If that be true, Sir, the North has acted 
either very liberally and kindly, or very 
weakly; for they never exercised that 
majority efiiciently five times in the 
history of the government, when a di- 
vision or trial of strength arose. Never. 
Whether they were outgeneralled, or 
whether it was owing to other causes, I 
shall not stop to consider; but no man 
acquainted with the history of the Union 
can deny that the general lead in the 
politics of the country, for three fourths 
of the period that has elapsed since the 
adoption of the Constitution, has been a 
Southern lead. 

In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of open- 
ing a new cotton region, the United 
States obtained a cession from Georgia 
of the whole of her western territory, 
now embracing the rich and growing 
States of Alabama and Mississippi. In 
1803 Louisiana was purchased from 
France, out of which the States of Lou- 
isiana, Arkansas, and Missouri have been 
framed, as slave-holding States. In 1819 
the cession of Florida was made, bring- 
ing in another region adapted to culti- 
vation by slaves. Sir, the honorable 
member from South Carolina thought 
he saw in certain operations of the gov- 
ernment, such as the manner of collect- 
ing the revenue, and the tendency of 
measures calculated to promote emigra- 
tion into the country, what accounts for 
the more rapid growth of the North than 
the South. He ascribes that more rapid 
growth, not to the operation of time, 
but to the system of government and 
administration established under this 
Constitution. That is matter of opin- 
1 Mr. Calhoun. 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



609 



ion. To a certain extent it may be 
true; but it does seem to nie that, if any 
operation of the government can be 
shown in any degree to have promoted 
the population, and growth, and wealth 
of tlie North, it is much more sure that 
tliere are sundry important and distinct 
operations of the government, about 
which no man can doubt, tending to 
jiromote, and which absolutely have pro- 
moted, the increase of the slave interest 
and the slave territory of the South. It 
was not time that brought in Louisiana ; 
it was the act of men. It was not time 
that brought in Florida; it was the act 
of men. And lastly, Sir, to complete 
those acts of legislation which have con- 
tributed so much to enlarge the area of 
the institution of slavery, Texas, great 
and vast and illimitable Texas, was 
added to the Union as a slave State in 
1845; and that. Sir, pretty much closed 
the whole chapter, and settled the whole 
account. 

That closed the whole chapter and 
settled the whole account, because the 
annexation of Texas, upon the condi- 
tions and under the guaranties upon 
■which she was admit ,d, did not leave 
■within the control of this government 
an acre of land, capable of being culti- 
vated by slave labor, between this Capi- 
tol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, 
or whatever is the jjroper boundary of 
Texas ; not an acre. From that moment, 
the whole country, from this place to the 
western boundary of Texas, was fixed, 
pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave 
territory for ever, by the solemn guar- 
anties of law. And I now say, Sir, as 
the proposition upon which I stand this 
day, and upon the truth and firmness of 
which I intend to act until it is over- 
thrown, that there is not at this moment 
within the United States, or any terri- 
tory of the United States, a single foot 
of land, the character of which, in re- 
trard to its being free territory or slave 
t rritory, is not fixed by some law, and 
- ine irrepealable law, beyond the power 
of the action of the government. Is it 
not so with respect to Texas? It is 
most manifestly so. The honorable mem- 
ber from South Carolina, at the time of 



the admission of Texas, held an impor- 
tant post in the executive department of 
the government; he was Secretary of 
State. Another eminent person of great 
activity and adroitness in affairs, I mean 
the late Secretary of the Treasury, ^ was 
a conspicuous member of this body, and 
took the lead in the business of annexa- 
tion, in co-operation with the Secretary 
of State; and I must say that they did 
tlieir business faithfully and thoroughly; 
there was no botch left in it. They 
rounded it off, and made as close joiner- 
work as ever was exhibited. Ile.solu- 
tions of annexation were brought into 
Congress, fitly joined together, compact, 
efficient, conclusive upon the great object 
which they had in view, and those reso- 
lutions passed. 

Allow me to read a part of these reso- 
lutions. It is the third clause of the 
second section of the resolution of the 
1st of March, 1845. for the admission of 
Texas, which applies to this part of the 
case. That clause is as follows : — 

" New States, of convenient size, not ex- 
ceeding four in number, in addition to said 
State of Texas, and having sufficient popu- 
lation, may hereafter, by the consent of 
said State, be formed out of the territory 
thereof, wliich shall be entitled to admis- 
sion under the provisions of the Federal 
Constitution. And such States as may be 
formed out of that portion of said territory 
lying south of thirty-six degrees tliirty 
minutes north latitude, commonly known 
as the Missouri Compromi.se line, shall be 
admitted into the Unicm with or without 
slavery, as the people of each State asking 
admission may desire ; and in such State 
or States as shall be funned out of said 
territory north of said Missouri Compro- 
mise line, slavery or involuntary servitude 
(except for crime) shall l)e proiiibited." 

Now what is here stipulated, enacted, 
and .secured? It is, that all Texas south 
of 30° ;30', which is nearly the wliole of 
it, shall be admitted into the Union a.s 
a slave State. It was a slave State, and 
therefore came in as a slave State ; and 
the guaranty is, that new States shall 
be made out of it, to the number of 
four, in addition to the State then in 

1 Mr. Walker. 



39 



610 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



existence and admitted at that time by 
these resolutions, and that such States 
as are formed out of that portion of 
Texas lying south of 30° 30' may come 
in as slave States. I know no form of 
legislation which can strengthen this. 
I know no mode of recognition that can 
add a tittle of weight to it. I listened 
respectfully to the resolutions of my 
honorable friend from Tennessee. ^ He 
proposed to recognize that stipulation 
with Texas. But any additional recog- 
nition would weaken the force of it; 
because it stands here on the ground of 
a contract, a thing done for a considera- 
tion. It is a law founded on a contract 
with Texas, and designed to carry that 
contract into effect. A recognition now, 
founded not on any consideration, or 
any contract, would not be so strong as 
it now stands on the face of the resolu- 
tion. I know no way, I candidly con- 
fess, in which this government, acting 
in good faith, as I trust it always will, 
can relieve itself from that stipulation 
and pledge, by any honest course of 
legislation whatever. And therefore I 
say again, that, so far as Texas is con- 
cerned, in the whole of that State south 
of 36° 30', which, I suppose, embraces 
all the territory capable of slave cultiva- 
tion, there is no land, not an acre, the 
character of which is not established by 
law; a law which cannot be repealed 
without the violation of a contract, and 
plain disregard of the public faith. 

I hope, Sir, it is now apparent that 
my proposition, so far as it respects 
Texas, has been maintained, and that 
the provision in this article is clear and 
absolute ; and it has been well suggested 
by my friend from Rhode Island,^ that 
that part of Texas which lies north of 
36° 30' of north latitude, and which 
may be formed into free States, is de- 
pendent, in like manner, upon the con- 
sent of Texas, herself a slave State. 

Now, Sir, how came this? How came 
it to pass that within these walls, where 
it is said by the honorable m^^mber from 
South Carolina that the free States have 
always had a majority, this resolution 
of annexation, such as I have described 
1 Mr. Bell. 2 Mr. Greene. 



it, obtained a majority in both houses 
of Congress? Sir, it obtained that 
majority by the great number of North- 
ern votes added to the entire Southern 
vote, or at least nearly the whole of 
the Southern vote. The aggregate was 
made up of Northern and Southern 
votes. In the House of Repi-esentatives 
there were about eighty Southern votes 
and about fifty Northern votes for the 
admission of Texas. In the Senate the 
vote for the admission of Texas was 
twenty-seven, and twenty-five against 
it; and of those twenty-seven votes, 
constituting the majority, no less than 
thirteen came from the free States, and 
four of them were from New England. 
The whole of these thirteen Senators, 
constituting within a fraction, you see, 
one half of all the votes in this body for 
the admission of this immeasurable ex- 
tent of slave territory, were sent here 
by free States. 

Sir, there is not so remarkable a 
chapter in our history of political events, 
political parties, and political men as is 
afforded by this admission of a new 
slave-holding territory, so vast that a 
bird cannot fly over it in a week. New 
England, as I have said, with some of 
her own votes, supported this measure. 
Three fourths of the votes of liberty- 
loving Connecticut were given for it in 
the other house, and one half here. 
There was one vote for it from Maine, 
but, I am happy to say, not the vote of 
the honorable member who addressed 
the Senate the day before yesterday, ^ 
and who was then a Representative from 
Maine in the House of Representatives ; 
but there was one vote from Maine, ay, 
and there was one vote for it from Mas- 
sachusetts, given by a gentleman then 
representing, and now living in, the 
district in which the prevalence of Free 
Soil sentiment for a couple of years or 
so has defeated the choice of any mem- 
ber to represent it in Congress. Sir, 
that body of Northern and Eastern men 
who gave those votes at that time are 
now seen taking upon themselves, in 
the nomenclature of politics, the ap- 
pellation of the Northern Democracy. 
1 Mr. Hamlin. 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION' AND THE UNION. 



611 



They undertook to wield the destinies 
of this empire, if I may give that name 
to a republic, and their policy was, and 
they persisted in it, to bring into this 
country and under this government all 
the territory they could. They did it, 
ill the case of Texas, under pledges, ab- 
solute pledges, to the slave interest, and 
they afterwards lent their aid in bring- 
ing in these new conquests, to take 
their chance for slavery or freedom. 
My honorable friend from Georgia, ^ in 
March, 1817, moved the Senate to de- 
clare that the war ought not to be pros- 
ecuted for the conquest of Territory, or 
for the dismemberment of Mexico. The 
wliole of the Northern Democracy voted 
against it. He did not get a vote from 
them. It suited the patriotic and ele- 
vated sentiments of the Northern De- 
mocracy to bring in a world from among 
the mountains and valleys of California 
and New Mexico, or any other part of 
Mexico, and then quarrel about it ; to 
bring it in, and then endeavor to put 
upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot 
Proviso. There wei'e two eminent and 
highly respectable gentlemen from the 
North and East, then leading gentlemen 
in the Senate, (I refer, and I do so with 
entire respect, for I entertain for both 
of those gentlemen, in general, high re- 
gard, to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. 
Niles of Connecticut,) who both voted 
for the admission of Texas. They 
would not have that vote any other way 
than as it stood; and they would have 
it as it did stand. I speak of the vote 
upon the annexation of Texas. Those 
two gentlemen would have the resolu- 
tion of annexation just as it is, without 
amendment; and they voted for it just 
as it is, and their eyes were all open 
to its true character. The honorable 
member from South Carolina who ad- 
dressed us the other day was then Sec- 
retary of State. His correspondence 
with Mr. Murphy, the Charge d' Affaires 
of the United States in Texas, had been 
published. That correspondence was all 
before those gentlemen, and the Secre- 
tary had the boldness and candor to 
avow in that correspondence, that the 
1 Mr. Berrien. 



great object sought by the annexation of 
Texas was to strengtiien tiie slave inter- 
est of the South. Why, Sir, he said so 
in so many words — 

Mk. Calhoun. Will the honoriihlo Sen- 
ator j)(.rinit me to interrupt him for a 
moment '? 

Certainly. 

Mr. Calhodn. I am very reluctant to 
interrupt the honorable {jcntlenian ; but, 
upon a point of so nuicii importance, I 
deem it riglit to put myself rectus in curia. 
I did not put it upon the ground assumed 
by the Senator. I put it ujioii this ground: 
that Great Britain had announced to this 
country, in so many words, that iier object 
was to abolish slavery in Texas, and, 
through Texas, to accomplish the abolition 
of slavery in the United States and the 
world. The ground I put it on was, that 
it would make an exposed frontier, and, if 
Great Britain succeeded in her object, it 
would be impossible that tiiat frontier 
could be secured against the aggressions of 
the Abolitionists; and that this government 
was bound, under the guaranties of the 
Constitution, to protect us against such a 
state of things. 

That comes, I suppose. Sir, to exactly 
the same thing. It was, that Texas 
must be obtained for the security of the 
slave interest of tlie South. 

Mk. Calhoux. Another view is very 
distinctly given. 

That was the object set forth in the 
correspondence of a worthy gentleman 
not now living,^ who preceded the hon- 
orable member from South Carolina in 
the Department of State. There re- 
pose on the files of the Department, a.s 
I have occasion to know, strong letters 
from Mr. Upshur to the United States 
Minister in England, and I believe there 
are some to the same Minister from the 
honorable Senator himself, asserting to 
this effect the sentiments of tiiis govern- 
ment; namely, that Great Britain was 
expected not to interfere to take Texiis 
out of the hands of its then existing 
government and make it a free country. 
But my argument, my suggestion, is 
this: that those gentlemen who com- 
1 Mr. Upshur. 



•^ 



612 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



posed the Northern Democracy when 
Texas was brought into the Union saw 
clearly that it was brought in as a slave 
country, and brought in for the purpose 
of being maintained as slave territory, 
to the Greek Kalends. I rather think 
the honorable gentleman who was then 
Secretary of State might, in some of 
his correspondence with Mr. Murphy, 
have suggested that it was not expedient 
to say too much about this object, lest 
it should create some alarm. At any 
rate, Mr. Murphy wrote to him that 
England was anxious to get rid of the 
constitution of Texas, because it was a 
constitution establishing slavery; and 
that what the United States had to do 
was to aid the people of Texas in 
upholding their constitution ; but that 
nothing should be said which should of- 
fend the fanatical men of the North. 
But, Sir, the honorable member did 
avow this object himself, openly, boldly, 
and manfully; he did not disguise his 
conduct or his motives. 

Mr. Calhoun. Never, never. 

What he means he is very apt to say. 

Mr. Calhoun. Always, always. 

And I honor him for it. 

This admission of Texas was in 1845. 
Then in 1847, flagrante bello between 
the United States and Mexico, the prop- 
osition I have mentioned was brought 
forward by my friend from Georgia, and 
the Northern Democracy voted steadily 
against it. Their remedy was to apply to 
the acquisitions, after they should come 
in, the Wilmot Proviso. What follows? 
These two gentlemen, ^ worthy and hon- 
orable and influential men, (and if they 
had, not been they could not have car- 
ried the measure,) these two gentlemen, 
members of this body, brought in Texas, 
and by their votes they also prevented 
the passage of the resolution of the hon- 
orable member from Georgia, and then 
they went home and took the lead in 
the Free Soil party. And there they 
stand. Sir! They leave us here, boimd 
in honor and conscience by the resolu- 

1 Messrs. Niles of Connecticut and Dix of 
New York. 



tions of annexation ; they leave us here, 
to take the odium of fulfilling the obli- 
gations in favor of slavery which they 
voted us into, or else the greater odium 
of violating those obligations, while 
they are at home making capital and 
rousing speeches for free soil and no 
slavery. And therefore I say, Sir, that 
there is not a chapter in our history, 
respecting public measures and public 
men, more full of what would create 
surprise, more full of what does create, 
in my mind, extreme mortification, 
than that of the conduct of the North- 
ern Democracy on this subject. 

Mr. President, sometimes, when a 
man is found in a new relation to 
things around him and to other men, 
he says the world has changed, and that 
he has not changed. I believe, Sir, that 
our self-respect leads us often to make 
this declaration in regard to ourselves 
when it is not exactly true. An indi- 
vidual is more apt to change, perhaps, 
than all the world around him. But 
under the present circumstances, and 
under the responsibility which I know I 
incur by what I am now stating here, I 
feel at liberty to recur to the various ex- 
pressions and statements, made at vari- 
ous times, of my own opinions and 
resolutions respecting the admission of 
Texas, and all that has followed. Sir, 
as early as 1836, or in the early part of 
1837, there was conversation and corre- 
spondence between myself and some 
private friends on this project of annex- 
ing Texas to the United States ; and an 
honorable gentleman with whom 1 have 
had a long acquaintance, a friend of 
mine, now perhaps in this chamber, I 
mean General Hamilton, of South Caro- 
lina, was privy to that correspondence. 
I had voted for the recognition of Texan 
independence, because I believed it to 
be an existing fact, surprising and as- 
tonishing as it was, and I wished well to 
the new republic ; but I manifested from 
the first utter opposition to bringing her, 
with her slave territory, into the Union. 
I happened, in 1837, to make a public 
address to political friends in New York, 
and I then stated my sentiments upon 
the subject. It was the first time that 



FOIi THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



613 



I had occasion to advert to it; and I will 
ask a friend near mo to have the kind- 
ness to read an extract from the speech 
made by me on that occasion. It was 
delivered in Niblo's Saloon, in 1837. 

Mr. Greene tlien read tlie followinij ex- 
tract from the speech uf Mr. Webster to 
wliieh he referred : — 

" Gentleineii, we all sec that, by whomso- 
ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- 
holding country ; and I frankly avow my 
'entire im willingness to do any thing- that 
shall extend the slavery of the African 
race on this continent, or add other slave- 
holding States to the Union. When I say 
that I regard slavery in itself as a great 
moral, social, and political evil, I only use 
language whicli has been adopted b}' dis- 
tinguished men, themselves citizens of slave- 
holding States. I shall do nothing, there- 
fore, to favor or encourage its further ex- 

I tension. We have slavery already amongst 
us. The Constitution found it in the Union ; 

I it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaran- 
ties. To the full extent of these guaran- 
ties we are all botmd, in honor, in justice, 

land by the Constitution. All the stipula- 
tions contained in the Constitution in favor 
of the slave-holding States which are al- 
ready in the Union ought to be fulfilled, 
and, so far as depends on me, shall be ful- 
filled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to 
the exactness of their letter. Slavery, as 
it exists in the States, is beyond the reach 
of Congress. It is a concern of the States 
themselves ; they have never submitted it 
to Congress, and Congress has no rightful 
power over it. I shall concur, therefore, 
in no act, no measure, no menace, no indi- 
cation of purpose, which shall interfere or 
threaten to interfere with the exclusive 
authority of the several States over the 
subject of slavery as it exists within their 
respective limits. All this appears to me 
to be matter of plain and imperative duty. 
" But when we come to speak of admit- 
ting new States, the subject assumes an en- 
tirely different aspect. Our rights and our 
duties are then both different. . . . 

" I see, therefore, no political necessity 
for the aimexation of Texas to the Union ; 
no advantages to be derived from it ; and 
objections to it of a strong, and, in my 
judgment, decisive character." 

I have nothing, Sir, to add to, or to 
take from, those sentiments. That 
speech, the Senate will perceive, was 



made in 1837. The purpose of imme- 
diately annexing Texas at that time 
was abandoned or postponed; and it 
was not revived with any vigor for some 
years. In the mean time it hapjiened 
that I had become a member of the 
executive administration, and was for 
a short period in the Department of 
State. The annexation of Texas was 
a subject of conversation, not conhden- 
tial, with the President and heads of 
departments, as well as with other j>ub- 
lic men. No serious attempt was then 
made, however, to bring it about. I 
left the Department of State in May, 
1843, and shortly after I learned, though 
by means which were no way connected 
with official information, that a de- 
sign had been taken ixp of bringing 
Texas, with her slave territory and 
population, into this Union. I was in 
Washington at the time, and persons 
are now here who will remember that 
we had an arranged meeting for conver- 
sation upon it. I went home to Massa- 
chusetts and proclaimed the existence 
of that purpose, but I could get no au- 
dience and but little attention. Some 
did not believe it, and some were too 
much engaged in their own jiursuits to 
give it any heed. They had gone to 
their farms or to their merchandise, and 
it was impossible to arouse any feeling 
in New England, or in Massachusetts, 
that shoidd combine the two great po- 
litical parties against this annexation; 
and, indeed, there was no hope of bring- 
ing the Northern Democracy into that 
view, for their leaning was all the other 
way. But, Sir, even witli Wliigs, and 
leading Whigs, I am ashamed to say, 
there was a great indifference towards 
the admission of Texas, with slave ter- 
ritory, into this Union. 

The project went on. I was then out 
of Congress. The annexation resolu- 
tions pas.sed on the 1st of Miivch, 1815; 
the legislature of Texas complied with 
the conditions and accepted the guaran- 
ties; for the language of the resolution 
is, that Texas is to come in " upon tiie 
conditions and under the guaranties 
herein prescribed." I was returned to 
the Senate in March, 1815, and was 



614 



SPEECH OF THE 7tii OF MARCH, 1850, 



« 



here in December following, when the 
acceptance by Texas of the conditions 
proposed by Congress was communi- 
cated to us by the President, and an 
act for the consummation of the union 
was laid before the two houses. The 
connection was then not completed. A 
final law, doing the deed of annexation 
ultimately, had not been passed; and 
when it was put upon its final passage 
here, I expressed my opposition to it, 
and recorded my vote in the negative; 
and there that vote stands, with the ob- 
servations that I made upon that occa- 
sion.^ Nor is this the only occasion on 
which I have expressed myself to the 
same effect. It has happened that, be- 
tween 1837 and this time, on various 
occasions, I have expressed my entire 
opposition to the admission of slave 
States, or the acquisition of new slave 
territories, to be added to the United 
States. I know, Sir, no change in my 
own sentiments, or my own purposes, 
in that respect. I will now ask my 
friend from Rhode Island to read an- 
other extract from a speech of mine 
made at a Whig Convention in Spring- 
field, Massachusetts, in the month of 
September, 1847. 

Mr. Greene here read the following 
extract : — 

" We hear much just now of a panacea 
for the dangers and evils of slavery and 
slave annexation, which they call t^ie 
' Wilmot Proviso.' That certainly is a 
just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to 
found any new party upon. It is not a 
sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs 
differ. There is not a man in this hall who 
holds to it more firmly than I do, nor one 
who adheres to it more than another. 

" I feel some little interest in this matter, 
Sir. Did not I commit myself in 1837 to 
the whole doctrine, fully, entirely'? And 
I must he permitted to say that I cannot 
quite consent that more recent discoverers 
should claim tlie merit and take out a 
patent. 

" I deny the priority of their invention. 
Allow me to say, Sir, it is not their 
thunder. . . . 

" We are to use the first and the last and 

1 See the remarks on the Admission of Texas, 
in Webster's Works, Vol. V. p. 55. 



every occasion which offers to oppose the 
extension of slave power. 

" But I speak of it here, as in Congress, 
as a political question, a question for 
statesmen to act upon. We must so re- 
gard it. I certainly do not mean to say 
that it is less important in a moral point of 
view, that it is not more important in many 
other points of view ; but as a legislator, 
or in any official capacity, I must look at 
it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of 
political action." 

On other occasions, in debates here, 
I have expressed my determination to 
vote for no acquisition, cession, or an- 
nexation, north or south, east or west. 
My opinion has been, that we have ter- 
ritory enough, and that we should 
follow the Si^artan maxim, " Improve, 
adorn what you have," seek no fur- 
ther. I think that it was in some 
observations that I made on the three- 
million loan bill that I avowed this sen- 
timent. In short. Sir, it has been 
avowed quite as often, in as many 
places, and before as many assemblies, 
as any humble opinions of mine ought 
to be avowed. 

But now that, under certain condi- 
tions, Texas is in the Union, with all her 
territory, as a slave State, with a solemn 
pledge, also, that, if she shall be di- 
vided into many States, those States 
may come in as slave States south of 
36° 30', how are we to deal with this 
subject? I know no way of honest 
legislation, when the proper time comes 
for the enactment, but to carry into 
effect all that we have stipvdated to do. 
I do not entirely agree with my honor-! 
able friend from Tennessee, ^ that, as 
soon as the time comes when she is en- 
titled to another representative, we 
should create a new State. On former 
occasions, in creating new States out of 
territories, we have generally gone ujion 
the idea that, when the population of 
the territory amounts to about sixty 
thousand, we would consent to its ad- 
mission as a State. But it is quite a 
different thing when a State is divided, 
and two or more States made out of it. 
It does not follow in such a case that 

1 Mr. Bell. 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



615 



/ 



the same rule of apportionment should 
be applied. That, however, is a 
matter for the consideration of Con- 
gress, when the proper time arrives. I 
may not then be here ; I may liave no 
vote to give on the occasion ; but I wish 
it to be distinctly understood, that, 
accordinsr to mv view of the matter, this 
government is solemnly pledged, by law 
and contract, to create new States out 
of Texas, with her consent, when her 
population shall justify and call for such 
a proceeding, and, so far as such States 
are formed out of Texan territory lying 
south of 36° 30', to let them come in as 
slave States. That is the meaning of 
the contract which our friends, the 
Northern Democracy, have left us to 
fulfil; and I, for one, mean to fulfil it, 
because I will not violate the faith of 
the government. What I mean to say 
is, that the time for the admission of 
new States formed out of Texas, the 
number of such States, their bounda- 
ries, the requisite amount of popula- 
tion, and all other things connected 
W'ith the admission, are in the free dis- 
cretion of Congress, except this; to wit, 
that, when new States formed out of 
Texas are to be admitted, they have a 
right, by legal stipulation and contract, 
to come in as slave States. 

Now, as to California and New Mex- 
ico, I hold slavery to be excluded from 
those territories by a law even superior 
to that which admits and sanctions it in 
Texas. I mean the law of nature, of 
physical geography, the law^ of the for- 
mation of the earth. That law settles 
for ever, with a strength beyond all 
terms of human enactment, that slavery 
cannot exist in California or New Mex- 
ico. Understand me, Sir; 1 mean sla- 
very as we regard it ; the slavery of the 
colored race as it exists in the Southern 
States. I shall not discuss the point, 
but leave it to the learned gentlemen 
who have undertaken to discuss it; but 
I suppose there is no slavery of that 
description in California now. I under- 
stand that peonism, a sort of penal ser- 
vitude, exists there, or rather a .sort of 
voluntary sale of a man and his off- 
spring for debt, an arrangement of a 



peculiar nature known to the law of 
JMexico. But what I mean to say is, 
that it is as impossible that Afi'ican 
slavery, as we see it among us, should 
find its way, or be introduced, into 
California and New Mexico, as any 
other natural impossibility. California 
and New Mexico are A.siatic in their 
formation and scenery. They are com- 
posed of vast ridges of mountains, of 
great height, with broken ridges and 
deep valleys. The sides of these moun- 
tains are entirely barren; their tops 
capped by perennial snow. There may 
be in California, now made free by its 
constitution, and no doubt there are, 
some tracts of valuable land. But it is 
not so in New Mexico. Pray, what is 
the evidence which every gentleman 
must have obtained on this subject, 
from information sought by himself 
or communicated by others? 1 have 
inquired and read all I could find, in 
order to acquire information on this 
important subject. AVhat is there in 
New ]\Iexico that could, by any possi- 
bility, induce anybody to go there with 
slaves'? There are some narrow strips 
of tillable laud on the borders of the 
rivers ; but the rivers themselves dry up 
before midsummer is gone. All that 
the people can do in that region is to 
raise some little articles, some little 
wheat for their torllllas, and that by 
irrigation. And who expects to see a 
hundred black men cultivating tobacco, 
corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on 
lands in New Mexico, made fertile only 
by irrigation? 

I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed 
fact, to use the current expression of 
the day, that both California and New 
Mexico are destined to be free, so far as 
they are settled at all, which I believe, 
in regard to New Mexico, will be but 
partially for a great length of time; 
free by the arrangement of things or- 
dained by the Power above us. I have 
therefore to say, in this respect also, 
that this countiy is fixed for freedom, 
to as many persons as shall ever live in 
it, by a less repoalable law than that 
which attaches to the right of iiolding 
slaves in Texas; and I will say further, 



616 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



\ that, if a resolution or a bill were now 
I before us, to provide a territorial gov- 
, ernment for New Mexico, I would not 
vote to put any prohibition into it what- 
ever. Such a prohibition would be idle, 
I as it respects any effect it would have 
upon the territory; and I would not 
take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordi- 
nance of nature, nor to re-enact the will 
of God. I would put in no Wilmot 
Proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt 
I or a reproach. I would put into it no 
\ evidence of the votes of superior power, 
j exercised for no purpose but to wound 
the pride, whether a just and a rational 
pride, or an irrational pride, of the citi- 
zens of the Southern States. I have no 
such object, no such purpose. They 
would think it a taunt, an indignity; 
they would think it to be an act taking 
away from them what they regard as a 
proper equality of privilege. Whether 
they expect to realize any benefit from 
it or not, they would think it at least a 
plain theoretic wrong; that something 
more or less derogatory to their charac- 
ter and their rights had taken place. 
I propose to inflict no such wound upon 
anybody, unless something essentially 
important to the country, and efficient 
to the preservation of liberty and free- 
dom, is to be effected. I repeat, there- 
fore. Sir, and, as I do not propose to 
addi'ess the Senate often on this subject, 
I repeat it because I wish it to be dis- 
tinctly understood, that, for the reasons 
stated, if a proposition were now here to 
establish a government for New Mexico, 
and it was moved to insert a provision 
for a prohibition of slavery, I would not 
vote for it. 

Sir, if we were now making a gov- 
ernment for New Mexico, and anybody 
should propose a Wilmot Proviso, I 
should treat it exactly as Mr. Polk 
treated that provision for excluding sla- 
very from Oregon. Mr. Polk was known 
to be in opinion decidedly averse to the 
AVilmot Proviso; but he felt the neces- 
sity of establishing a government for the 
Territory of Oregon. The proviso was 
in the bill, but he knew it would be en- 
tirely nugatory; and, since it must be 
entirely nugatory, since it took away no 



right, no describable, no tangible, no 
appreciable right of the South, he said 
he would sign the bill for the sake of 
enacting a law to form a government in 
that Territory, and let that entirely use- 
less, and, in that connection, entirely 
senseless, proviso remain. Sir, we hear 
occasionally of the annexation of Can- 
ada ; and if there be any man, any of the 
Northern Democracy, or any one of the 
Free Soil party, who supposes it neces- 
sary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a 
territorial government for New Mexico, 
that man would of course be of opinion 
that it is necessary to protect the ever- 
lasting snows of Canada from the foot 
of slavery by the same overspreading 
wing of an act of Congress. Sir, wher- 
ever there is a substantive good to be 
done, wherever thei'e is a foot of land to 
be j)revented from becoming slave terri- 
tory, I am ready to assert the princi- 
ple of the exclusion of slavery. I am 
pledged to it from the year 1837; I have 
been pledged to it again and again ; and 
I will perform those pledges; but 1 will 
not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds 
the feelings of others, or that does dis- 
credit to my own understanding. 

Now, Mr. President, I have estab- 
lished, so far as I proposed to do so, the 
proposition with which I set out, and 
upon which I intend to stand or fall; 
and that is, that the whole territory 
within the former United States, or in 
the newly acquired Mexican provinces, 
has a fixed and settled character, now 
fixed and settled by law which cannot 
be repealed, — in the case of Texas with- 
out a violation of public faith, and by no 
human power in regard to California or 
New Mexico; that, therefore, under one 
or other of these laws, every foot of land 
in the States or in the Territories has 
already received a fixed and decided 
character. 

Mr. President, in the excited times in 
which we live, there is found to exist a 
state of crimination and recrimination 
between the North and South. There 
are lists of grievances produced by each ; 
and those grievances, real or supposed, 
alienate the minds of one portion of the 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



617 



country from the other, exasperate the 
feelings, and subdue the sense of fra- 
ternal affection, patriotic love, and mu- 
tual regard. I shall bestow a little at- 
tention, Sir, upon these various grievan- 
ces existing on the one side and on the 
other. I begin with complaints of the 
South. I will not answer, further than 
I have, the general statements of the 
honorable Senator from South Carolina, 
that the Xorth has prospered at tlie ex- 
pense of the South in consequence of the 
manner of administering this govern- 
ment, in the collecting of its revenues, 
and so forth. These are disputed tojiics, 
and I have no inclination to enter into 
them. But I will allude to other com- 
plaints of the South, and especially to 
one which has in my opinion just foun- 
dation ; and that is, that there has been 
found at the Xorth, among individuals 
and among legislators, a disinclination 
to perform fully their constitutional 
duties in regard to tho return of persons 
bound to service who have escaped into 
the free States. In that respect, the 
South, in my judgment, is right, and 
the Xorth is wrong. Every member of 
every Xorthern legislature is bound by 
oath, like every other officer in the coun- 
try, to support the Constitution of the 
United States; and tlie article of the 
Constitution ^ which says to these States 
that they shall deliver up fugitives from 
service is as binding in iionor and con- 
science as any other article. Xo man 
fulfils his duty in any legislature who 
sets himself to find excuses, evasions, 
escapes from this constitutional obliga- 
tion. I have always thought that the 
Constitution addressed itself to the legis- 
latures of the States or to the States 
themselves. It says that those persons 
escaping to other States "shall be de- 
livered up," and I confess I have always 
been of the opinion that it was an in- 
junction upon the States themselves. 
When it is said that a person escaping 
into another State, and coming there- 
fore within the jurisdiction of that State, 
shall be delivered up, it seems to me the 
import of the clause is, that the State 
itself, in obedience to the Constitution, 
1 Art. IV. Sect. 2, § 2. 



shall cause him to be delivered up. 
That is my judgment. I have always 
entertained that opinion, and I entertain 
it now. But when the subject, some years 
ago, was before tiie Supreme Court of 
the United States, the majority of the 
judges held that the power to cause fugi- 
tives from service to be delivered up was 
a power to be exercised under the au- 
thority of this government. I do not 
know, on the whole, that it may not 
have been a fortunate decision. j\Iy 
habit is to respect the result of judicial 
deliberations and the solenmity of judi- 
cial decisions. As it now stands, the 
business of seeing that these fugitives 
are delivered up resides in the power of 
Congress and the national judicature, 
and my friend at the head of the Judi- 
ciary Committee i has a bill on the sub- 
ject now before the Senate, which, with 
some amendments to it, I propose to 
support, with all its provisions, to the 
fullest extent. And I desire to call the 
attention of all sober-minded men at 
the Xorth, of all conscientious men, of 
all men who are not carried away by 
some fanatical idea or some false im- 
pression, to their constitutional obliga- 
tions. I put it to all the sober and 
sound minds at the Xorth as a question 
of morals and a question of conscience. 
What right have they, in their legisla- 
tive capacity or any other capacity, to 
endeavor to get round this Constitution, 
or to embarrass the free exercise of the 
rights secured by the Constitution to the 
persons wliose slaves escape from tliem? 
Xone at all; none at all. Xeither in 
the forum of conscience, nor before the 
face of the Constitution, are they, in 
my opinion, justified in such an attempt. 
Of course it is a matter for their consid- 
eration. They probably, in the excite- 
ment of the times, have not stopped to 
consider of this. They have followed 
what seemed to be the current of thouglit 
and of motives, as the occasion arose, 
and they have neglected to investigate 
fully the real question, and to consider 
their constitutional obligations; which, 
I am sure, if tliey did consider, they 
would fulfil with alacrity. I repeat, 
1 Mr. Mason. 



618 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



therefore, Sir, that here is a well-founded 
ground of complaint against the North, 
■which ought to be removed, which it is 
now in the power of the different depart- 
ments of this government to remove; 
which calls for the enactment of proper 
laws authorizing the judicature of this 
government, in the several States, to do 
all that is necessary for the recapture of 
fugitive slaves and for their restoration 
to those wlio claim them. Wherever I 
go, and whenever I speak on the subject, 
and when I speak here I desire to speak 
to the whole North, I say that the South 
has been injured in this respect, and 
has a right to complain ; and the North 
has been too careless of what I think the 
Constitution peremptorily and emphati- 
cally enjoins upon her as a duty. 

Complaint has been made against 
certain resolutions that emanate from 
legislatures at the North, and are sent 
here to us, not only on the subject of 
slavery in this District, but sometimes 
recommending Congress to consider the 
means of abolishing slavery in the 
States. I should be sorry to be called 
upon to present any resolutions here 
which could not be referable to any 
committee or any power in Congress; 
and therefore I should be unwilling to 
receive from the legislature of Massa- 
chusetts any instructions to present reso- 
lutions expressive of any opinion what- 
ever on the subject of slavery, as it 
exists at the present moment in the 
States, for two reasons: first, because I 
do not consider that the legislature of 
Massachusetts has any thing to do with 
it; and next, because I do not consider 
that I, as her representative here, have 
any thing to do with it. It has become, 
in my opinion, quite too common; and 
if the legislatures of the States do not 
like that opinion, tliey have a great deal 
more power to put it down than I have 
to uphold it; it has become, in my opin- 
ion, quite too common a practice for the 
State legislatures to present resolutions 
here on all subjects and to instruct us on 
all subjects. There is no public man 
that requires instruction more than I 
do, or who requires information more 
than I do, or desu-es it more heartily; 



but I do not like to have it in too im- 
perative a shape. I took notice, with 
pleasure, of some remarks made upon 
this subject, the other day, in the Sen- 
ate of Massachusetts, by a young man 
of talent and character, of whom the 
best hopes may be entertained. I mean 
Mr. Hillai'd. He told the Senate of Mas- 
sachusetts that he would vote for no in- 
structions whatever to be forwarded to 
members of Congress, nor for any reso- 
lutions to be offered exjjressive of the 
sense of Massachusetts as to what her 
members of Congress ought to do. He 
said that he saw no propriety in one set 
of public servants giving instructions 
and reading lectures to another set of 
pul>lic servants. To his own master 
each of them must stand or fall, and 
that master is his constituents. I wish 
these sentiments could become more 
common. I have never entered into 
the question, and never shall, as to the 
binding force of instructions. I will, 
however, simply say this: if there be 
any matter pending in this body, while 
I am a member of it, in which Massa- 
chusetts has an interest of her own not 
adverse to the general interests of the 
country, I shall pursue her instructions 
with gladness of heart and with all the 
efficiency which I can bring to the occa- 
sion. But if the question be one which 
affects her interest, and at the same time 
equally affects the interests of all the 
other States, I shall no more regard her 
particular wishes or instructions than I 
should regard the wishes of a man who 
might appoint me an arbitrator or ref- 
eree to decide some question of impor- 
tant private right between him and his 
neighbor, and then instruct me to decide 
in his favor. If ever there was a gov- 
ernment upon earth it is this govern- 
ment, if ever there was a body upon 
earth it is this body, which should con- 
sider itself as composed by agreement of 
all, each member appointed by some, but 
organized by the general consent of all, 
sitting here, under the solemn obliga- 
tions of oath and conscience, to do that 
which they think to be best for the good 
of the whole. 

Then, Sir, there are the Abolition 



FOll THE CONSTITUTION AND TIIE UNION. 



619 



societies, of which T am unwilling to 
speak, but in regard to -nliicli 1 have 
very clear notions and opinions. I do 
not think them ixsefiil. I think their 
operations for the last twenty years 
have produced nothing good or valua- 
ble. At the same time, I believe thou- 
sands of their members to be honest 
and good men, perfectly well-meaning- 
men. They have excited feelings; they 
think they must do something for the 
cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of 
action, they do not see what else they 
can do than to contribute to an Aboli- 
tion press, or an Abolition society, or to 
pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not 
mean to impute gross motives even to 
the leaders of these societies ; but I am 
not blind to the consequences of their 
proceedings. I cannot but see what 
mischiefs their interference with the 
South has produced. And is it not 
plain to every man? Let any gentle- 
man who entertains doubts on this 
point recur to the debates in the Vir- 
ginia House of Delegates in 1832, 
and he will see with what freedom 
a proposition made by Mr. Jeiferson 
Randolph for the gradual abolition of 
slavery was discussed in that body. 
Every one spoke of slavery as he 
thought; very ignominious and dispar- 
aging names and epithets were applied 
to it. The debates in the House of 
Delegates on that occasion, I believe, 
were all published. They were read by 
every colored man who could read ; and 
to those who could not read, those de- 
bates were read by others. At that time 
Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to 
discuss this question, and to let that 
part of her population know as much 
of the discussion as they could learn. 
That was in 1832. As has been said 
by the honorable member from South 
Carolina, these Abolition societies com- 
menced their course of action in 1835. 
It is said, I do not know how true it 
may be, that they sent incendiary pub- 
lications into the slave States ; at any 
rate, tiiey attempted to arouse, and did 
arouse, a very strong feeling; in other 
words, they created great agitation in the 
North against Southern slaveiy. Well, 



what was the result? The bonds of 
the slaves were bound more firmly than 
before, their rivets were more strongly 
fastened. Public opinion, which in Vir- 
ginia had begun to be exhibited against 
slavery, and was opening out for the dis- 
cussion of the question, drew back and 
shut itself up in its castle. I wish to 
know whether anybody in Virginia can 
now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Gov- 
ernor ]\IcDovvell, and others talked in 
1832, and sent their remarks to the 
press? We all know the fact, and we 
all know the cause ; and every thing 
that these agitating people have done 
has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, 
not to set free, but to bind faster, the 
slave population of the South. ^ 

Again, Sir, the violence of the North- 
ern press is complained of. The press 
violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent 
eveiywhere. There are outrageous re- 
proaches in the North against the South, 
and there are reproaches as vehement in 
the South against the North. Sir, the 
extremists of both parts of this country 
are violent; they mistake loud and vio- 
lent talk for eloquence and for reason. 
They think that he who talks loudest 
reasons best. And this we must ex- 
pect, when the press is free, as it is 
here, and I trust alw'ays will be; for, 
with all its licentiousness and all its 
evil, the entire and absolute freedom of 
the press is essential to the preservation 
of go\-ernment on the basis of a free 
constitution. Wherever it exists there 
will be foolish and violent paragraphs in 
the newspapers, as there are, I am sorry 
to say, foolish and violent speeches in 
both houses of Congress. In truth. Sir, 
I must say that, in my opinion, the 
vernacular tongue of the country has 
become greatly vitiated, depraved, and 
corrupted by the style of our Congres- 
sional debates. And if it were possible 
for those debates to vitiate the principles 
of the people as much as they have de- 
praved their tastes, I should cry out, 
" God save the Kepublic! " 

AVell, in all this I see no solid griev- 
ance, no grievance presented by the 
South, within the redress of the gov- 
1 See Note at the end of the Speech. 



G20 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



ernment, but the single one to which I 
have referred; and that is, the want of 
a proper regard to the injunction of the 
Constitution for the delivery of fugitive 
slaves. 

There are also complaints of the North 
against the South. I need not go over 
them particularly. The first and gravest 
is, that the North adopted the Constitu- 
tion, recognizing the existence of slavery 
in the States, and recognizing the right, 
to a certain extent, of the representation 
of slaves in Congress, under a state of 
sentiment and expectation which does 
not now exist; and that, by events, by 
circumstances, by the eagerness of the 
South to acquire territory and extend 
her slave population, the North finds 
itself, in regard to the relative influence 
of the South and the North, of the free 
States and the slave States, where it 
never did expect to find itself when 
they agreed to the compact of the Con- 
stitution. They complain, therefore, 
that, instead of slavery being regarded 
as an evil, as it was then, an evil which 
all hoped would be extinguished grad- 
ually, it is now regarded by the South 
as an institution to be cherished, and 
preserved, and extended ; an institution 
which the South has already extended 
to the utmost of her power by the acqui- 
sition of new territory. 

Well, then, passing from that, every- 
body in the North reads ; and every- 
body reads whatsoever the newspapers 
contain; and the newspapers, some of 
them, especially those presses to which 
I have alluded, are careful to spread 
about among the people every reproach- 
ful sentiment uttered by any Southern 
man bearing at all against the North; 
every thing that is calculated to exas- 
perate and to alienate ; and there are 
many such things, as everybody will 
admit, from the South, or some portion 
of it, which are disseminated among 
the reading people; and they do exas- 
perate, and alienate, and produce a most 
mischievous effect upon the public mind 
at the North. Sir, I would not notice 
things of this sort appearing in obscure 
quarters; but one thing has occurred in 
this debate which struck me very forci- 



bly. An honorable member from Lou- 
isiana addressed us the other day on this 
subject. I suppose there is not a more 
amiable and worthy gentleman in this 
chamber, nor a gentleman who would be 
more slow to give offence to anybody, 
and he did not mean in his remarks to 
give offence. But what did he say? 
Why, Sir, he took pains to run a con- 
trast between the slaves of the South 
and the laboring people of the North, 
giving the preference, in all points of 
condition, and comfort, and haj^piness, 
to the slaves of the South. The honor- 
able member, doubtless, did not suppose 
that he gave any offence, or did any in- 
justice. He was merely expressing his 
opinion. But does he know how re- 
marks of that sort will be received by 
the laboring people of the North ? 
Why, who are the laboring people of 
the North? They are the whole North. 
They are the people who till their own 
farms with their own hands; freehold- 
ers, educated men, independent men. 
Let me say. Sir, that five sixths of the 
whole property of the North is in the 
hands of the laborers of the North; 
they cultivate their farms, they educate 
their children, they provide the means 
of independence. If they are not free- 
holders, they earn wages; these wages 
accumulate, are turned into cajjital, into 
new freeholds, and small capitalists are 
created. Such is the case, and such 
the course of things, among the indus- 
trious and frugal. And what can these 
people think when so respectable and 
worthy a gentleman as the member from 
Louisiana undei'takes to prove that the 
absolute ignorance and the abject sla- 
very of the South are more in conformity 
with the high purposes aud destiny of 
immortal, rational human beings, than 
the educated, the independent free labor 
of the North? 

There is a more tangible and irritat- 
ing cause of grievance at the North. 
Free blacks are constantly employed in 
the vessels of the North, generally as 
cooks or stewards. When the vessel 
arrives at a Southern port, these free 
colored men are taken on shore, by the 
police or municipal authority, impris- 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



621 



oned, and kept in prison till the vessel is 
again ready to sail. This is not only irri- 
tating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and 
opiiressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, some 
time ago, to South Carolina, was a well- 
intended effort to remove this cause of 
complaint. The North thinks such im- 
prisonments illegal and unconstitutional ; 
and as the cases occur constantly and 
frequently, they regard it as a great 
grievance. 

Now, Sir, so far as any of these griev- 
ances have their foundation in matters 
of law, they can be redressed, and onglit 
to be redressed ; and so far as they have 
their foimdation in matters of opinion, 
in sentiment, in mutual crimination and 
recrimination, all that we can do is to 
endeavor to allay the agitation, and cul- 
tivate a better feeling and more fraternal 
sentiments between the South and the 
North. 

Mr. President, I should much prefer 
to have heard from every member on 
this floor declarations of opinion that 
this Union could never be dissolved, than 
the declaration of opinion by anybody, 
that, in any case, under the pressure of 
any circumstances, such a dissolution 
was possible. I hear with distress and 
anguish the word " secession," espe- 
cially when it falls from the lips of 
those who are patriotic, and known to 
the country, and known all over the 
world, for their political services. Se- 
cession ! Peaceable secession ! Sir, your 
eyes and mine are never destined to see 
that miracle. The dismemberment of 
this vast country without convulsion! 
The breaking up of the fountains of the 
great deep without ruffling the surface! 
Who is so foolish, 1 beg everybody's 
pardon, as to expect to see any such 
thingV Sir, he who sees these States, 
now revolving in harmony around a 
common centre, and expects to see them 
quit their places and fly off without con- 
vulsion, may look the next hour to see 
the heavenly bodies rush from their 
spheres, and jostle against each other 
in the realms of space, without causing 
the wreck of the universe. There can 
be no such thing as a peaceable seces- 
sion. Peaceable secession is an utter 



impossil)ility. Ts the great Constitution 
under which we live, covering this whole 
country, — is it to be thawed and melted 
away by secession, as the snows on the 
mountain melt under the influence of a 
vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, 
and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will 
not state what might produce the dis- 
ruption of the Union; but. Sir, I see as 
plainly as I see the sun in heaven what 
that disruption itself must produce; I 
see that it must jiroduce war, and such 
a war as I will not describe, in its twofold 
character. 

Peaceable secession ! Peaceable seces- 
sion ! The concurrent agreement of all 
the members of this great re]iublic to 
separate! A voluntary separation, with 
alimony on one side and on the other. 
Why, what would be the result? Where 
is the line to be drawn? What States 
are to secede? AVhat is to remain Amer- 
ican? What am I to be? An American 
no longer? Am I to become a sectional 
man, a local man, a separatist, with no 
country in common with the gentlemen 
who sit around me here, or who fill the 
other house of Congress? Heaven for- 
bid ! Where is the flag of the republic 
to remain? Where is the eagle still to 
tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, 
and fall to the ground? AVhy, Sir, our 
ancestors, our fathers and our grand- 
fathers, those of them that are yet living 
amongst us with prolonged lives, would 
rebuke and reproach us; and our chil- 
dren and our grandchildren would ciy 
out shame upon us, if we of this giMiera- 
tion should dishonor these ensigns of the 
power of the government and the har- 
mony of that Union which is eveiy day 
felt among us with so nuich joy and 
gratitude. What is to become of the 
army? What is to become of the navy? 
What is to become of the public laiuls? 
How is each of the thirty States to defend 
itself? I know, although the idea has 
not been stated distinctly, there is to be, 
or it is supposed possible that there will 
be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not 
mean, when I allude to this statement, 
that any one seriously contemitlatos sudi 
a state of things. I do not mean to 
say that it is true, but I have heard it 



622 



SPEECH OF THE 7tii OF MARCH, 1850, 



suggested elsewhere, that the idea has 
been entertained, that, after the dissolu- 
tion of this Union, a Southern Confeder- 
acy might be formed. I am sorry. Sir, 
that it has ever been thought of, talked 
of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights 
of human imagination. But the idea, 
so far as it exists, must be of a separa- 
tion, assigning the slave States to one 
side and the free States to the other. 
Sir, I may express myself too strongly, 
perhaps, but there are impossibilities in 
the natural as well as in the physical 
world, and I hold the idea of a separa- 
tion of these States, those that are free 
to form one government, and those that 
are slave-holding to form another, as 
such an impossibility. AVe could not 
separate the States by any such line, if 
we were to draw it. We could not sit 
down here to-daj' and draw a line of sep- 
aration that would satisfy any five men 
in the country. There are natural causes 
that would keep and tie us together, and 
there are social and domestic relations 
which we could not break if we would, 
and which we should not if we could. 

Sir, nobody can look over the face of 
this country at the present moment, no- 
body can see where its population is the 
most dense and growing, without being 
ready to admit, and compelled to admit, 
that erelong the strength of America 
will be in the Valley of the Mississij^pi. 
Well, now. Sir, I beg to inquire what 
the wildest enthusiast has to say on the 
possibility of cutting that river in two, 
and leaving free States at its source and 
on its branches, and slave States down 
near its mouth, each forming a separate 
government? Pray, Sir, let me say to 
the people of this country, that these 
things are worthy of their pondering and 
of their consideration. Here, Sir, are 
five millions of freemen in the free States 
north of the river Ohio. Can anj'body 
suppose that this population can be sev- 
ered, by a line that divides them from 
the territory of a foreign and an alien 
government, down somewhere, the Lord 
knows where, upon the lower banks of 
the Mississippi? What would become 
of Missouri ? Will she join the arron- 
dissement of the slave States ? Shall 



the man from the Yellowstone and the 
Platte be connected, in the new republic, 
with the man who lives on the southern 
extremity of the Cape of Florida ? Su', 
I am ashamed to pursue this line of re- 
mark. I dislike it, I have an utter dis- 
gust for it. I would rather hear of 
natural blasts and mildews, war, pesti- 
lence, and famine, than to hear gentle- 
men talk of secession. To break up this 
great government! to dismember this 
glorious country! to astonish Eurojje 
with an act of folly such as Europe for 
two centuries has never beheld in any 
government or any people! No, Sir! 
no, Sir ! There will be no secession ! 
Gentlemen are not serious when they 
talk of secession. 

Sir, I hear there is to be a convention 
held at Nashville. I am bound to be- 
lieve that, if worthy gentlemen meet at 
Nashville in convention, their object 
will be to adopt conciliatory counsels ; 
to advise the South to forbearance and 
moderation, and to advise the North to 
forbearance and moderation ; and to in- 
culcate principles of brotherly love and 
affection, and attachment to the Consti- 
tution of the country as it now is. I 
believe, if the convention meet at all, it 
will be for this purpose; for certainly, 
if they meet for any purpose hostile to 
the Union, they have been singularly 
inappropriate in their selection of a place. 
I remember, Sir, that, when the treaty 
of Amiens was concluded between France 
and England, a sturdy Englishman and 
a distinguished orator, who regarded the 
conditions of the peace as ignominious 
to England, said in the House of Com- 
mons, that, if King William could know 
the terms of that treaty, he would turn 
in his coffin! Let me commend this 
saying of Mr. Windham, in all its em- 
phasis and in all its force, to any per- 
sons who shall meet at Nashville for the 
purpose of concerting measures for the 
overthrow of this Union over the bones 
of Andrew Jackson ! 

Sir, I wish now to make two remarks, 
and hasten to a conclusion. I wish to 
say, in regard to Texas, that if it should 
be hereafter, at any time, the pleasure 
of the government of Texas to cede to 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION, 



623 



tl>e United States a portion, larger or 
smaller, of her territory which lies adja- 
cent to New Mexico, and north of 36° 
30' of north latitude, to be formed into 
free States, for a fair eijuivalent in 
money or in the payment of her debt, 
I tiiink it an object well worthy the con- 
sideration of Congress, and I shall be 
happy to concur in it myself, if I should 
liave a connection w ith the government 
at that time. 
7 I have one other remark to make. In 

'^my observations upon slavery as it has 
existed in this country, and as it now 
exists, I have expressed no opinion of 
tiie mode of its extinguishment or melio- 
ration. I will say, however, though T 
have nothing to propose, because I do 
not deem myself so competent as other 
gentlemen to take any lead on this sub- 
ject, that if any gentleman from the 
South shall propose a scheme, to be car- 
ried on by this government upon a large 
scale, for the transportation of free col- 
ored people . to any colony or any place 
in the world, I should be quite disposed 
to incur almost any degTee of expense to 
accomplish that object. Nay, Sir, fol- 
lowing an example set more than twenty 
years ago by a great man,^ then a Sen- 
ator from New York. I would return to 
\'irginia, and through her to the whole 
South, the money received from the lands 
and territories ceded by her to this gov- 
ernment, for any such purpose as to re- 
move, in whole or in part, or in any 
way to diminish or deal beneficially with, 
the free colored population of the South- 
ern States. I have said that I honor 
Virginia for her cession of this territoiy. 
There have been received into the treas- 
ury of the United States eighty millions 

iof dollars, the proceeds of the sales of 
the public lands ceded by her. If the 
residue should be sold at the same rate, 
the whole aggregate will exceed two hun- 
dred millions of dollars. If Virginia 
and the South see fit to adopt any prop- 
osition to relieve themselves from the 
free people of color among them, or such 
as may be made free, they have my full 
consent that the government shall i>ay 
them any sura of money out of the pro- 
1 Mr. Rufus King. 



ceeds of that cession which may be ade- 
quate to the purpose. 

And now, Mr. President, I draw these 
observations to a close. I have spoken 
freely, and I meant to do so. I iiave 
sought to make no display. I have 
sought to enliven the occasion by no an- 
imated discussion, nor liave I attempted 
any train of elaborate argument. I have 
wished only to speak my sentiments, 
fully and at length, being desirous, once 
ami for all, to let the Senate know, and 
to let the country know, the opinions 
and sentiments which I entertain on ail 
these subjects. These opinions are not 
likely to be suddenly changed. If there 
be any future service that I can render 
to the country, consistently with these 
sentiments and opinions, I shall cheer- 
fully render it. If there be not, I shall 
still be glad to have had an opportu- 
nity to disbiu'den myself from the bot- 
tom of my heart, and to make known 
every political sentiment tliat therein 
exists. 

And now, Mr. President, instead of 
speaking of the possibility or utility of 
secession, instead of dwelling in those 
caverns of darkness, instead of groping 
with those ideas so full of all that is 
horrid and horrible, let us come out into 
the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh 
air of Liberty and Union ; let us cherish 
those hopes which belong to us ; let us 
devote ourselves to those great objects 
that are fit for our consideration and 
our action ; let us raise our conceptions 
to the magnitude and the importance of 
the duties that devolve ui)on us ; let our 
comprehension be as broad as the coun- 
try for which we act, our aspirations a,s 
hi<ih as its certain destiny; let us not be 
pygmies in a case that calls for men. 
Never did there devolve on any genera- 
tion of men higher trusts than now 
devolve upon us, for the preservation of 
this Constitution and the liarmony and 
peace of all who are destined to live 
under it. Let us make our generation 
one of the strongest and brightest links 
in that golden chain which is destined, 
I f(»ndly believe, to grapple the jjeople of 
all the States to this Constitution for 
ages to come. We have a great, popu- 



i^ 



624 



SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 



lar, constitutional government, guarded 
by law and by judicature, and defended 
by the affections of the whole people. 
No monarchical throne presses these 
States together, no iron chain of mili- 
tary power encircles them ; they live and 
stand under a government popular in 
its form, representative in its character, 
founded upon principles of equality, 
and so constructed, we hope, as to last 
for ever. In all its history it has been 
beneficent; it has trodden down no 
man's liberty; it has crushed no State. 
Its daily respiration is liberty and pa- 
triotism ; its yet youthful veins are full 
of enterprise, courage, and honorable 



love of glory and renown. Large be- 
fore, the country has now, by recent 
events, become vastly larger. This re- 
public now extends, with a vast breadth, 
across the whole continent. The two 
great seas of the world wash the one 
and the other shore. We realize, on a 
mighty scale, the beautiful description 
of the ornamental border of the buckler 
of Achilles : — 

"Now, the broad shield complete, the artist 

crowned 
With his last hand, and poured the ocean 

round ; 
In living silver seemed the waves to roll. 
And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the 

whole." 



NOTE. 

Page 619. 

Letter from Mr. Webster to the Editors of the National Intelligencer, enclosing 
Extracts from a Letter of the late Dr. Ghanning . 



Waslungton, February 15, 1851. 

Messrs. Gales and Seaton : — 

Having occasion recently to look over 
some files of letters written several years 
ago, I happened to fall on one from the late 
Ilev. Dr. W. E. Cliamiing. It contains pas- 
sages which I think, coming from such a 
source, and written at such a time, would 
he interesting to the country. I have there- 
fore extracted them, and send them to you 
for publication in your columns. 
Yours respectfully, 

Daniel Webster. 



Boston, May 14, 1828. 
Mt dear Sir : — 

I wish to call your attention to a subject 
of general interest. 

A little while ago, Mr. Lundy of Balti- 
more, the editor of a paper called " The 
Genius of Universal Emancipation," visited 
this part of the country, to stir us up to the 
work of abolishing slavery at the Soutii, 
and the intention is to organize societies for 
this purpose. I know few objects into 
which I should enter with more zeal, bvit I 
am aware how cautiously exertions are to 
be made for it in this part of the country. 
I know that our Southern brethren inter- 
pret every word from this region on the 



subject of slavery as an expression of hos- 
tility. I would ask if they cannot be 
brought to understand us better, and if we 
can do any good till we remove their mis- 
apprehensions. It seems to me that, before 
moving in this matter, we ought to say to 
them distinctly, " We consider slavery as 
your calamity, not your crime, and we will 
share with you the burden of putting an 
end to it. We will consent that the public 
lands shall be appropriated to this object ; 
or that the general government shall be 
clothed with power to apply a portion of 
revenue to it." 

I throw out these suggestions merely to 
illustrate my views. We must first let the 
Southern States see that we are their /r/enr/s 
in this affair ; that we sympathize with 
them, and, from principles of patriotism 
and philanthropy, are willing to share the 
toil and expense of abolishing slavery, or I 
fear our interference will avail nothing. I 
am the more sensitive on this subject from 
my increased solicitude for the preservation 
of the Union. I know no public interest 
so important as this. I ask from the gen- 
eral government hardly any other boon than 
that it will hold us together, and preserve 
pacific relations and intercourse among the 
States. I deprecate every thing which 
sows discord and exasperates sectional 
animosities. If it will simply keep us at 
peace, and will maintain in full power the 



FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 



625 



national courts, for the purpose of settling 
quietly amonjj citizens of different States 
questions whicli niiglit otlierwise be settled 
by arms, I siiall be satisfied. 

My fear in regard to our efforts against 
slavery is, that we shall make the ease 
worse by rousing sectional jiride and pas- 
sion for its support, and that we shall only 
break the country into two great parties, 
which may shake the foundations of gov- 
ernment. 

I have written to you because your situa- 



tion gives you advantages which yierhaps 
no other man enjoys for asciTtaining the 
method, if any can hv devised, by which we 
may opiTate benetiiially and safely in re- 
gard to slavery. Apj)eals will prijbably be 
made soon to the people here, and I wish 
that wise men would save us from the rash- 
ness of enthusiasts, and from tlie perils to 
which our very virtues expose us. 

With great respect, your friend, 

Wm. E. Ciiannino. 
Hon. Daniel Webstek. 



40 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 

A SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE A LARGE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITIZENS OF 
BUFFALO AND THE COUNTY OF ERIE, AT A PUBLIC RECEPTION ON THE 
22d OF MAY, 1851. 



Fellow-Citizens of the City of 
Buffalo, — I am very glad to see you; 
I meet you with pleasure. It is not the 
first time that I have been in Buffalo, 
and I have always come to it with grati- 
fication. It is at a great distance from 
my own home. I am thankful that cir- 
cumstances have enabled me to be here 
again, and I regret that untoward events 
deprived me of the pleasure of being 
with you when your distinguished fel- 
low-citizen, the President of the United 
States, visited you, and received from 
you, as he deserved, not only a respect- 
ful, but a cordial and enthusiastic wel- 
come. The President of the United 
States has been a resident aiuong you 
for more than half his life. He has 
represented you in the State and na- 
tional councils. You know him and 
all his relations, both public and pri- 
vate, and it would be bad taste in me 
to say any thing of him, except that I 
wish to say, with emphasis, that, since 
my connection with him in the adminis- 
tration of the government of the United 
States, I have fully concurred with him 
in all his great and leading measures. 
This might be inferred from the fact 
that I have been one of his ordinary ad- 
visers. But I do not wish to let it rest 
on that presumption ; I wish to declare 
that the principles of the President, as 
set forth in his annual message, his let- 
ters, and all documents and opinions 
which have pi'oceeded from him, or 
been issued by his authority, in regard 
to the great question of the times, — all 
these principles' are my principles ; and 



if he is wrong in them, I am, and al- 
ways shall be. 

Gentlemen, it has been suggested to 
me that it would be agreeable to the 
citizens of Buffalo, and their neighbors 
in the county of Erie, that I should 
state to you my opinions, whatever may 
be their value, on the present condition 
of the country, its prospects, its hopes, 
and its dangers; and, fellow-citizens, I 
intend to do that, this day, and this hour, 
as far as my strength will permit. 

Gentlemen, believe me. I know where 
I am. I know to whom I am speaking. 
I know for whom I am speaking. I 
know that I am here in this singularly 
prosperous and powerful section of the 
United States, Western New York, and 
I know the character of the men who 
inhabit Western New York. I know 
they are sons of liberty, one and all; 
that they sucked in liberty with their 
mothers' milk; inherited it with their 
blood ; that it is the subject of their daily 
contemplation and watchful thought. 
They are men of unusual equality of 
condition, for a million and a half of 
people. There are thousands of men 
around us, and here before us, who till 
their own soil with their own hands; 
and others who earn their own liveli- 
hood by their own labor in the work- 
shops and other places of industry ; and 
they are independent, in principle and 
in condition, having neither slaves nor 
masters, and not intending to have 
either. These are the men who con- 
stitute, to a great extent, the people of 
Western New York. But the school- 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



627 



house, I know, is among them. Educa- 
tion is among them. They read, and 
■write, and think. Here, too, are women, 
educated, refined, and intelligent; and 
here are men who know the history of 
their country, and the laws of their 
country, and the institutions of their 
country; and men, lovers of liberty al- 
ways, and yet lovers of liberty under 
the Constitution of the country, and 
who mean to maintain tliat Constitu- 
tion with all their strength. I hope 
these observations will satisfy you that 
I know where I am, under what respon- 
sibility I speak, and before whom I ap- 
pear ; and I have no desire that any 
word I shall say this day shall be with- 
holden from you, or your children, or 
your neighbors, or the whole world; for 
I speak before you and before my coun- 
try, and, if it be not too solemn to 
say so, before the great Author of all 
things. 

Gentlemen, there is but one question 
in this country now ; or, if there be 
others, they are but secondary, or so 
subordinate that they are all absorbed 
in that great and leading question ; and 
that is neither more nor less than this: 
Can we preserve the union of the States, 
not by coercion, not by military power, 
not by angry controversies, — but can 
we of this generation, you and I, your 
friends and my friends, — can we so 
preserve the union of these States, by 
such administration of the powers of 
the Constitution as shall give content 
and satisfaction to all who live under it, 
and draw us together, not by military 
power, but by the silken cords of mutual, 
fraternal, patriotic affection? That is 
the question, and no other. Gentlemen, 
1 believe in party distinctions. I am a 
party man. There are questions be- 
longing to party in which I take an 
interest, and there are opinions enter- 
tained by other parties which I repudi- 
ate; but what of all that? If a house 
i be divided against itself, it will fall, and 
. crush everj'body in it. We must see 
that we maintain the government which 
'. is over us. We must see that we up- 
hold the Constitution, and we must do 
so without regard to party. 



Xow how did this question arise? 
The question is for ever misstated. I 
dare say, if you know much of me, or 
of my course of public conduct, for the 
last fourteen months, you have heard of 
my attending Union meetings, and of 
my fervent admonitions at Union meet- 
ings. Well, what was the object of 
those meetings? What was their pur- 
pose? The object and purpose have 
been designedly or tliouglitlessly mis- 
represented. I had an invitation, some 
time since, to attend a Union meeting 
in the county of Westchester; I could 
not go, but wrote a letter. Well, some 
wise man of the East said he did not 
think it was very necessary to hold 
Union meetings in Westchester. He 
did not think there were many dis- 
unionists about Tarrytown ! And so in 
many parts of the country, there is a 
total misapprehension of the purpose 
and object of these Union meetings. 
Every one knows, that there is not a 
county, or a city, or a hamlet in the 
State of New York, that is ready to go 
out of the Union, but only some small 
bodies of fanatics. There is no man so 
insane in the State, not fit for a lunatic 
asylum, as to wish it. But that is not 
the point. We all know that every man 
and every neighborhood, and all cor- 
porations, in the State of New York, 
except those I have mentioned, are at- 
tached to the Union, and have no idea 
of withdrawing from it.. But that is 
not, I repeat, the point. The question, 
fellow-citizens, (and I put it to you now 
as the real question,) tlie question is, 
^Vhether you and the rest of the people 
of tlie great State of New York, and of 
all the States, will so adhere to tlie Con- 
stitution, will so enact and maintain 
laws to preserve that instrument, that 
you will not only remain in the Union 
yourselves, but permit your brethren to 
remain in it, and help to i)erpetuate it? 
That is the question. Will you concur 
in measures necessary to maintain the 
Union, or will you oppose such meas- 
ures? That is the whole jjoint of the 
case. 

There are thirty or forty members of 
Congress from New York; you have 



628 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



your proportion in the United States 
Senate. We have many members of 
Congress from New England. Will they 
maintain the laws that are passed for 
the administration of the Constitution, 
• and respect the rights of the South, so 
that the Union may be held together; 
and not only so that we may not go out 
of it ourselves, which we are not in- 
clined to do, but so that, by maintaining 
the rights of others, they may also re- 
main in the Union? Now, Gentlemen, 
permit me to say, that I speak of no 
concessions. If the South wish any con- 
cession from me, they will not get it; 
not a hair's breadth of it. If they come 
to my house for it, they will not find it, 
and the door will be shut; I concede 
nothing. But I say that I will maintain 
for them, as I will maintain for you, to 
the utmost of my power, and in the face 
of all danger, their rights under the 
Constitution, and your rights under the 
Constitution. And I shall never be 
found to falter in one or the other. It 
is obvious to every one, and we all know 
it, that the origin of the great disturb- 
ance which agitates the country is the 
existence of slavery in some of the States ; 
but we must meet the subject ; we must 
consider it; we must deal with it ear- 
nestly, honestly, and justly. From the 
mouth of the St. John's to the confines 
of Florida, there existed, in 1775, thir- 
teen colonies of English origin, planted 
at different times, a-nd coming from dif- 
ferent parts of England, bringing with 
them various habits, and establishing, 
each for itself, institutions entirely dif- 
ferent from the institutions which they 
left, and in many cases from each other. 
But they were all of English origin. 
The English language was theirs, Shak- 
speare and Milton were theirs, the com- 
mon law of England was theirs, and the 
Christian religion was theirs ; and these 
things held them together by the force 
of a common character. The aggres- 
sions of the parent state compelled them 
to assert their independence. They de- 
clared independence, and that immortal 
act, pronounced on the 4th of July, 1776, 
made them independent. 

That was an act of union by the 



United States in Congress assembled. 
But this act of itself did nothing to es- 
tablish over them a general govei-nment. 
They had a Congress. They had Arti- 
cles of Confederation to prosecute the 
war. But thus far they were still, es- 
sentially, separate and independent each 
of the other. They had entered into a 
simple confederacy, and nothing more. 
No State was bound by what it did not 
itself agree to, or what was done accord- 
ing to the provisions of the confedera- 
tion. That was the state of things, 
Gentlemen, at that time. The war went 
on ; victory crowned the American arms ; 
our independence was acknowledged. 
The States were then united together 
under a confederacy of very limited pow- 
ers. It could levy no taxes. It could 
not enforce its own decrees. It was a 
confederacy, instead of a united govern- 
ment. Experience showed that this 
was insufficient and inefficient. Accord- 
ingly, beginning as far back almost as 
the close of the war, measures were 
taken for the formation of a united gov- 
ernment, a government in the strict sense 
of the term, a government that could 
pass laws binding on the individual citi- 
zens of all the States, and which could 
enforce those laws by its executive pow- 
ers, having them interpreted by a judicial 
power belonging to the government it- 
self, and yet a government strictly lim- 
ited in its nature. Well, Gentlemen, 
this led to the formation of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, and that 
instrument was framed on the idea of 
a limited government. It proposed to 
leave, and did leave, the different domes- 
tic institutions of the several States to 
themselves. It did not propose consoli- 
dation. It did not propose that the laws 
of Virginia should be the laws of New 
York, or that the laws of New York 
should be the laws of Massachusetts. It 
proposed only that, for certain purjioses 
and to a certain extent, there should be 
a united government, and that that gov- 
ernment should have the power of exe- 
cuting its own laws. All the rest was 
left to the several States. 

We now come, Gentlemen, to the very! 
point of the case. At that time slavery] 



RFXEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



629 



existed in the Southern States, entailed 
upon them in the time of the supremacy 
of British laws over us. There it was. 
It was obnoxious to the ]\liddle and 
Eastern States, and honestly and seri- 
ously disliked, as the records of the 
country will show, by the Soutiiern States 
themselves. Now, how was it to be dealt 
with? Were the Northern and Middle 
States to exclude from the government 
those States of the South which had pro- 
duced a Washington, a Laurens, and 
other distinguished patriots, who had so 
truly served, and so greatly honored, the 
whole countiy? Were they to be ex- 
cluded from the new government be- 
cause they tolerated the institution of 
slavery? Your fathers and my fathers 
did not think so. They did not see that 
it would be of the least advantage to the 
slaves of the Southern States, to cut off 
the South from all connection with the 
North. Their views of humanity led to 
no such result; and of course, when the 
Constitution was framed and estab- 
lished, and adopted by you, here in New 
York, and by New England, it con- 
tained an express provision of security 
to the persons who lived in the Southern 
States, in regard to fugitives who owed 
them service ; that is to say, it w'as stipu- 
lated that the fugitive from service or 
labor should be restored to his master 
or owner if he escaped into a free State. 
Well, tliat had been the history of the 
country from its first settlement. It was 
a matter of common practice to return 
fugitives before the Constitution was 
formed. Fugitive slaves from Virginia 
to INIassachusetts were restored by the 
people of Massachusetts. At that day 
there was a great system of apprentice- 
ship at the North, and many apprentices 
at the North, taking advantage of cir- 
cumstances, and of vessels sailing to the 
South, thereby escaped; and they were 
restored on proper claim and proof. 
That led to a clear, express, and well- 
defined provision in the Constitution of 
the country on the subject. Now I am 
aware that all these tilings are well 
known ; that they have been stated a 
thousand times; but in these days of 
perpetual discontent and misrepresenta- 



tion, to state things a thousand times is 
not enough ; for tliere are persons whose 
consciences, it would seem, lead them 
to consider it their duty to deny, mis- 
represent, falsify, and cover up truths. 
Now these are words of the Constitu- 
tion, fellow-citizens, which I have taken 
the pains to transcribe therefrom, so that 
he who runs may read: — 

" No PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR 
LABOR IN ONE StATE, UXDEU THE LAWS 
THEREOF, ESCAPING INTO ANOTHER, 
SHALL, IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY LAW 
OR REGULATION THEREIN, BE DIS- 
CHARGED FROM SUCH SERVICE OR LA- 
BOR, BUT SHALL BE DELIVERED UP ON 
CLAIM OF THE PARTY TO WHOM SUCH 
SERVICE OR LABOR MAY BE DUE." 

Is there any mistake about that? Is 
there any forty-shilling attorney here to 
make a question of it? No. I will not 
disgrace my profession by sup2>osing 
such a thing. There is not, in or out 
of an attorney's office in the county of 
Erie, or elsewhere, one who could raise 
a doubt, or a particle of a doubt, about 
the meaning of this provision of the 
Constitution. He may act as witnesses 
do, sometimes, on the stand. He may 
wriggle, and twist, and say he cannot 
tell, or cannot remember. I have seen 
many sucli efforts in my time, on the 
part of witnesses, to falsify and deny 
the truth. But there is no man who 
can read these words of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and say they 
are not clear and imperative. " No per- 
son," the Constitution says, "held to 
service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, 
in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service 
or labor, but shall be delivered up on 
claim of the party to whom such service 
or labor may be due." Why, you may 
be told by forty conventions in Massa- 
chusetts, in Ohio, in New York, or else- 
where, that, if a colored man comes 
here, he comes as a freeman; that is a 
7um sequitur. It is not so. If he comes 
as a fugitive from labor, the Constitu- 
tion .says he is not a freeman, and that 
he shall be delivered up to those who 
are entitled to his service. 



630 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



Gentlemen, that is the Constitution of 
the United States. Do we, or do we 
not, mean to conform to it, and to exe- 
cute that part of the Constitution as well 
as the rest of it? I believe there are 
before me here members of Congress. I 
suppose there may be here members of 
the State legislature, or executive officers 
under the State government. I suppose 
there may be judicial magistrates of 
New York, executive officers, assessors, 
supervisors, justices of tlie peace, and 
constables before me. Allow me to say. 
Gentlemen, that there is not, that there 
cannot be, any one of these officers in 
this assemblage, or elsewhere, who has 
not, according to the form of the usual 
obligation, bound himself by a solemn 
oath to support the Constitution. They 
have taken their oaths on the Holy 
Evangelists of Almighty God, or by up- 
lifted hand, as the case may be, or by a 
solemn affirmation, as is the practice in 
some cases ; but among all of them there 
is not a man who holds, nor is there any 
man who can hold, any office in the gift 
of the United States, or of this State, or 
of any other State, who does not bind 
himself, by the solemn obligation of an 
oath, to support the Constitution of the 
United States. Well, is he to tamper 
with that? Is he to palter? Gentle- 
men, our political duties are as much 
matters of conscience as any other duties ; 
our sacred domestic ties, our most en- 
dearing social relations, are no more the 
subjects for conscientious consideration 
and conscientious discharge, than the 
duties we enter upon under the Consti- 
tution of the United States. The bonds 
of political brotherhood, which hold us 
together from Maine to Georgia, rest 
upon the same principles of obligation 
as those of domestic and social life. 

Now, Gentlemen, that is the plain 
story of the Constitution of the United 
States, on the question of slavery. I 
contend, and have always contended, 
that, after the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, any measure of the government 
calculated to bring more slave territory 
into the United States was beyond the 
power of the Constitution, and against 
its provisions. That is my opinion, and 



it always has been my opinion. It was 
inconsistent with the Constitution of the 
United States, or thought to be so, in 
Mr. Jefferson's time, to attach Louisiana 
to the United States. A treaty with 
France was made for that purpose. 
Mr. Jefferson's opinion at that moment 
was, that an alteration of the Constitu- 
tion was necessary to enable it to be 
done. In consequence of considerations 
to which I need not now refer, tliat 
opinion was abandoned, and Louisiana 
was admitted by law, without any pro- 
vision in, or alteration of, the Constitu- 
tion. At that time I was too young to 
hold any office, or take any share in the 
political affairs of the country. Louisi- 
ana was admitted as a slave State, and 
became entitled to her representation in 
Congress on the principle of a mixed 
basis. Florida was afterwards admit- 
ted. Then, too, I was out of Congress. 
I had formerly been a member, but had 
ceased to be so. I had nothing to do 
with the Florida treaty, or the admis- 
sion of Florida. My opinion remains 
unchanged, that it was not within the 
original scope or design of the Constitu- 
tion to admit new States out of foreign 
territory; and, for one, whatever may 
be said at the Syracuse Convention, or 
at any other assemblage of insane per- 
sons, I never would consent, and never 
have consented, that there should be one 
foot of slave territory beyond what the 
old thirteen States had at the time of 
the formation of the Union. Never, 
never! The man cannot show his face 
to me, and say he can prove that I ever 
departed from that doctrine. He would 
sneak away, and slink away, or hire a 
mercenary press to cry out. What an 
apostate from liberty Daniel Webster 
has become! But he knows himself to 
be a hypocrite and a falsifier. 

But, Gentlemen, I was in public life 
when the proposition to annex Texas to 
the United States was brought forward. 
You know that the revolution in Texas, 
which separated that country from Mex- 
ico, occurred in the year 1835 or 1836. 
I saw then, and I do not know that it 
required any particular foresight, that 
it would be the very next thing to bring 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



631 



Texas, wliich was designed to be a slave- 
holding State, into this Union. I did 
not wait. I sought an occasion to pro- 
claim my utter aversion to any such 
measure, and I determined to resist it 
with all my strength to the last. On 
this subject, Gentlemen, you will bear 
with me, if 1 now repeat, in the pres- 
ence of this assembly, what I have be- 
fore spoken elsewhere. I was in this 
city in the year 1837, and, some time 
before I left New York on that excur- 
sion from which I returned to this place, 
my friends in Xew York were kind 
enough to offer me a public dinner as a 
testimony of their regard. I went out 
of my way, in a speech delivered in 
Niblo's Saloon, on that occasion, for 
the purpose of showing that I antici- 
pated the attempt to annex Texas as a 
slave territory, and said it should be 
opposed by me to the last extremity. 
"Well, there was the press all around 
me, — the Whig press and the Demo- 
cratic press. Some spoke in terms com- 
mendatory enough of my speech, but all 
agreed that I took pains to step out of 
my way to denounce in advance the 
annexation of Texas as slave territory 
to the United States. I said on that 
occasion : — 

" Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomso- 
ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- 
liolding country ; and I frankly avow my 
entire unwilllugnoss to do any thing that 
shall extend the slavery of the African 
race on this continent, or add other slave- 
holding States to the Union. When I say 
that I regard slavery in itself as a great 
moral, social, and political evil, I only use 
language which has been adopted by dis- 
tinguished men, themselves citizens of 
slave-holding States. I shall do nothing, 
therefore, to favor or encourage its fur- 
ther extension. We have slavery already 
amongst us. The Constitution found it in 
the Union ; it recognized it, and gave it sol- 
emn guaranties. To the full extent of 
these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, 
in justice, and by the Constitution. All the 
stipulations contained in the Constitution 
in favor of tlie slavc-lioliiing States wiiicli 
are already in the Union ought to be ful- 
filled, and, so far as depends on me, shall 
be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit 
and to the exactness of their letter. Sla- 



very, as it exists in the States, is beyond 
the reach of Congress. It is a concern of 
the States themselves ; they have never 
submitted it to Congress, and Congress has 
no rightful power over it. I shall concur, 
therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, 
no indication of purpose, which shall inter- 
fere or threaten to interfere with the exclu- 
sive authority of the several States over the 
subject of slavery as it exists within their 
respective limits. All this api)ear8 to me 
to be matter of plain aiul iinpiTative duty. 
But when we come to speak of admitting 
new States, the subject assumes an entirely 
different aspect. Our rights and our duties 
are then both different. The free States, 
and all the States, are then at liberty to 
accept or to reject. When it is proposed to 
bring new members into this political part- 
nership, the old members have a right to 
say on what terms such new partners are 
to come in, and what they are to bring along 
with them. In my opinion, the ])eoiile of 
the United States will not consent to bring 
into the Union a new, vastly extensive, and 
slave-holding country, large enough for half 
a dozen or a dozen States. In my opinion, 
they ought not to consent to it." 

Gentlemen, I was mistaken ; Congress 
did consent to the bringing \n of Texas. 
They did consent, and I was a false 
prophet. Your own State consented, 
and the majority of the representatives 
of New York consented. I went into 
Congress before the final consummation 
of the deed, and there I fought, holding 
up both my hands, and urging, with a 
voice stronger than it now is. my remon- 
strances against the whole of it. But 
you woidd have it so, and you did have 
it so. Nay, Gentlemen, I will tell the 
truth, whether it shames the Devil or 
not. Persons who have asjiired high as 
lovers of liberty, a.s eminent lovers of 
the Wilmot Proviso, as eminent Free 
Soil men, and who have mounted over 
our heads, and trodden us down as if we 
were mere slaves, insisting that tiiey are 
the only true lovers of liberty, they are 
the men, the very men, that brought 
Texas into this Union. This is the 
truth, the whole truth, and notiiing but 
the truth, and I declare it before you, 
this day. Look to the journals. With- 
out the consent of New York, Texas 
would not have come into tlie Union, 



632 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



either under the original resolutions or 
afterwards. But New York voted for 
the measure. The two Senators from 
New York voted for it, and decided the 
question ; and you may thank them for 
the glory, the renown, and the happi- 
ness of having five or six slave States 
added to the Union. Do not blame me 
for it. Let them answer who did the 
deed, and who are now proclaiming 
themselves the champions of liberty, 
crying up their Free Soil creed, and 
using it for selfish and deceptive pur- 
poses. They were the persons who aided 
in bringing in Texas. It was all fairly 
told to you, both beforehand and after- 
wards. You heard Moses and the proph- 
ets, but if one had risen from the dead, 
such was your devotion to that policy, at 
that time, you would not have listened to 
him for a moment. I do not, of course, 
speak of the persons now here before 
me, but of the general political tone in 
New York, and especially of those who 
are now Free Soil apostles. Well, all 
that I do not complain of ; but I will not 
now, or hereafter, before the countiy, 
or the world, consent to be numbered 
among those who introduced new slave 
power into the Union. I did all in my 
power to prevent it. 

Then, again. Gentlemen, the Mexican 
war broke out. Vast territory was ac- 
quired, and the peace was made; and, 
much as I disliked the war, I disliked 
the peace more, because it brought in 
these territories. I wished for peace 
indeed, but I desired to strike out the 
grant of territory on the one side, and 
the payment of the $12,000,000 on the 
other. That territory was unknown to 
me; I could not tell what its character 
might be. The plan came from the 
South. I knew that certain Southern 
gentlemen wished the acquisition of 
California, New Mexico, and Utah, as 
a means of extending slave power and 
slave population. Foreseeing a sectional 
controversy, and, as I conceived, seeing 
how iimch it would distract the Union, 
I voted against the treaty with Mexico. 
I voted against the acquisition. I wanted 
none of her territory, neither California, 
New Mexico, nor Utah. They were 



rather ultra- American, as I thought. 
They were far from us, and I saw that 
they might lead to a political conflict, 
and I voted against them all, against 
the treaty and against the peace, rather 
than have the territories. Seeing that 
it would be an occasion of dispute, that 
by the controversy the whole Union 
would be agitated, Messrs. Berrien, 
Badger, and other respectable and dis- 
tinguished men of the South, voted 
against the acquisition, and the treaty 
which secured it; and if the men of the 
North had voted the satne way, we 
should have been spared all the difficul- 
ties that have grown out of it. We 
should have had peace without the ter- 
ritories. 

Now there is no sort of doubt. Gen- 
tlemen, that there were some persons in 
the South who supposed that California, 
if it came into the Union at all, would 
come in as a slave State. You know 
the extraordinary events which imme- 
diately occurred, and the impulse given 
to emigration by the discovery of gold. 
You know that crowds of Northern peo- 
ple immediately rushed to California, 
and that an African slave could no more 
live there among them, than he could 
live on the top of Mount Hecla. Of 
necessity it became a free State, and 
that, no doubt, was a source of much 
disappointment to the South. And then 
there were New Mexico and Utah ; what 
was to be done with them? Why, Gen- 
tlemen, from the best investigation I had 
given to the subject, and the reflection 
I had devoted to it, 1 was of the opinion 
that the mountains of New Mexico and 
Utah could no more sustain American 
slavery than the snows of Canada. I 
saw it was impossible. I thought so 
then; it is quite evident now. There- 
fore, when it was proposed in Congress 
to apply the Wilmot Proviso to New 
Mexico and Utah, it appeared to me 
just as absurd as to apply it here in 
Western New York. I saw that the 
snow-capped hills, the eternal moun- 
tains, and the climate of tliose countries 
would never support slavery. No man 
could carry a slave there with any ex- 
pectation of profit. It could not be 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



633 



done; and as the South regarded the 
Proviso as merely a source of irritation, 
and as designed by some to irritate, I 
thought it unwise to apply it to Xew 
Mexico or Utah. I voted accordingly, 
and who doubts now the correctness of 
that vote? The law admitting those 
territories passed without any proviso. 
Is there a slave, or will there ever 
be one, in either of those territories? 
Why, there is not a man in the United 
States so stupid as not to see, at tliis 
moment, that such a thing was wholly 
unnecessary, and that it was only calcu- 
lated to irritate and to offend. 1 am 
not one who is disposed to create irrita- 
tion, or give offence among brethren, or 
to break up fraternal friendship, with- 
out cause. The question was accord- 
ingly left legally open, whether slavery 
should or should not go to New INIexico 
or Utah. There is no slavery there, it 
is utterly impracticable that it should 
be introduced into such a region, and 
utterly ridiculous to suppose that it 
could exist there. No one, who does 
not mean to deceive, will now pretend 
it can exist there. 

Well, Gentlemen, we have a race of 
agitators all over the country; some 
connected with the press, some, I am 
sorry to say, belonging to the learned 
professions. They agitate; their liveli- 
hood consists in agitating; their free- 
hold, their copyhold, their capital, their 
all in all, depend on the excitement 
of the public mind. The events now 
briefly alluded to were going on at the 
commencement of the year 1850. There 
were two great questions before the 
public. There was the question of tlie 
Texan boundaiy, and of a government 
for Utah and New Mexico, which I 
consider as one question ; and there 
was the question of making a provision 
for the restoration of fugitive slaves. 
On these subjects, I have something to 
say. Texas, as you know, established 
her independence of Mexico by her 
revolution and the battle of San Jacinto, 
which made her a sovereign power. I 
have already stated to you what I then 
anticipated from the movement, namely, 
that she would ask to come into the 



Union as a slave State. We admitted 
her in 1815, and we admitted her as a 
slave State. We admitted her also with 
an undefined boundary ; remember that. 
She claimed by concpiest the whole 
of that territory commonly called New 
IMexico, east of the Rio Grande. She 
claimed also those limits which her con- 
stitution had declared and marked out 
as the proper limits of Texas. This 
was her claim, and when she was ad- 
mitted into the United States, the Unit- 
ed States did not define her territory. 
They admitted her as she was. We 
took her as she defined her own limits, 
and with the power of making four ad- 
ditional slave States. I say " we," but 
I do not mean that I was one; I mean 
the United States admitted her. 

What, then, was the state of things 
in 1850? There was Texas claiming 
all, or a great part, of that which the 
United States had acquired from Mex- 
ico as New IMexico. She claimed that 
it belonged to her by conquest and by 
her admission into the United States, 
and she was ready to maintain her claim 
by force of arms. Nor was this all. A 
man must be ignorant of the history of 
the country who does not know, that, at 
the commencement of 1850, there was 
great agitation throughout the whole 
South. Who does not know that six 
or seven of the largest States of the 
South had already taken measures look- 
ing toward secession; were preparing 
for disunion in some way? They con- 
curred apparently, at least some of 
them, with Texas, while Texas was 
prepared or preparing to enforce her 
rights by force of arms. Troops were 
enlisted by her, and many thousand 
persons in the South disaffected towards 
the Union, or desirous of breaking it up, 
were ready to make connnon cau.se with 
Texas; to join her ranks, and see what 
they could make in a war to establish 
the right of Texas to New Mexico. 
The pul)lic mind was disturbed. A 
considerable part of the South was dis- 
affected towards the Union, and in a 
condition to adopt any cour.se that should 
be violent and destructive. 

What then was to be done, as far as 



634 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



Texas was concerned? Allow me to 
say, Gentlemen, there are two sorts of 
foresight. There is a military foresight, 
which sees what will be the result of 
an appeal to arms ; and there is also a 
statesmanlike foresight, which looks not 
to the result of battles and carnage, but 
to the results of political disturbances, 
the violence of faction carried into mili- 
tary operations, and the horrors attend- 
ant on civil war. I never had a doubt, 
that, if the administration of General 
Taylor had gone to war, and had sent 
troops into New Mexico, the Texan 
forces would have been subdued in a 
week. The power on one side was 
far superior to all the power on the 
other. But what then? What if Texan 
troops, assisted by thousands of volun- 
teers from the disaffected States, had 
gone to New Mexico, and had been de- 
feated and turned back? Would that 
have settled the boundary question? 
Now, Gentlemen, I wish I had ten 
thousand voices. I wish I could draw 
around me the whole people of the 
United States, and I wish I could make 
them all hear what I now declare on my 
conscience as my solemn belief, before 
the Power who sits on high, and who 
will judge you and me hereafter, that, 
if this Texan controversy had not been 
settled by Congress in the manner it 
was, by the so-called adjustment meas- 
ures, civil war would have ensued; 
blood, American blood, would have been 
shed; and who can tell what would have 
been the consequences? Gentlemen, in 
an honorable war, if a foreign foe in- 
vade us, if our rights are threatened, if 
it be necessary to defend them by arms, 
I am not afraid of blood. And if I am 
too old myself, I hope there are those 
connected with me by ties of relation- 
ship who are young, and willing to de- 
fend their country to the last drop of 
their blood. But I cannot express the 
horror I feel at the shedding of blood 
in a controversy between one of these 
States and the government of the United 
States, because I see in it a total and 
entire disruption of all those ties that 
make us a great and happy people. 
Gentlemen, this was the great question, 



the leading question, at the commence- 
ment of the year 1850. 

Then there was the other matter, and 
that was the Fugitive Slave Law. Let 
me say a word about that. Under the 
provisions of the Constitution, during 
Washington's administration, in the 
year 1793, there was passed, by general 
consent, a law for the restoration of 
fugitive slaves. Hardly any one op- 
posed it at that period ; it was thought 
to be necessary, in order to carry the 
Constitution into effect; the great men 
of New England and New York all con- 
curred in it. It passed, and answered 
all the purposes expected from it, till 
about the year 1841 or 1842, when the 
States interfered to make enactments in 
opposition to it. The act of Congi-ess 
said that State magistrates might exe- 
cute the duties of the law. Some of the 
States passed enactments imposing a 
penalty on any State officers who exer- 
cised authority under the law, or assisted 
in its execution; others denied the use 
of their jails to carry the law into effect; 
and, in general, at the commencement of 
the year 1850, it had become absolutely 
indispensable that Congress should pass 
some law for the execution of this pro- 
vision of the Constitution, or else give 
up that provision entirely. That was 
the question. I was in Congress when 
it was brought forward. I was for a 
proper law. I had, indeed, proposed 
a different law; I was of opinion that a 
surhmary trial by a jury might be had, 
which would satisfy the people of the 
North, and produce no harm to those 
who claimed the service of fugitives; 
but I left the Senate, and went to an- 
other station, before any law was passed. 
The law of 1850 passed. Now I under- 
take, as a lawyer, and on my profes- 
sional character, to say to you, and to 
all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly 
more favorable to the fugitive than 
General Washington's law of 1793; and 
I will tell you why. In the first place, 
the present law places the power in 
much higher hands; in the hands of 
independent judges of the Supreme and 
Circuit Courts, and District Courts, and 
of commissioners who are appointed to 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



635 



office for their legal learning. Every 
fugitive is brought before a tribunal of 
high character, of eminent ability, of re- 
spectable station. In the second place, 
when a claimant comes from Virginia 
to New York, to say that one A or one 
B has run away, or is a fugitive from 
service or labor, he brings with him a 
record of the court of the county from 
which he comes, and that record must 
be sworn to before a magistrate, and 
certified by the county clerk, and bear 
an official seal. The affidavit must state 
that A or B had departed under such 
and such circumstances, and had gone 
to another State ; and that record under 
seal is, bj' the Constitution of the United 
States, entitled to full credit in every 
State. Well, the claimant or his agent 
comes here, and he presents to you the 
seal of the court in Virginia, affixed to 
a record of his declaration, that A or B 
had escaped from service. He must 
then prove that the fugitive is here. 
He brings a witness; he is asked if 
this is the man, and he proves it; 
or, in nine cases out of ten, the fact 
would be admitted by the fugitive him- 
self. 

Such is the present law; and, much 
opposed and maligned as it is, it is more 
favorable to the fugitive slave than the 
law enacted during Washington's ad- 
ministration, in 1793, which was sanc- 
tioned by the Xorth as well as by the 
South. The present violent opposition 
has sprung up in modern times. From 
whom does this clamor come? Why, 
look at the proceedings of the antisla- 
very conventions; look at their resolu- 
tions. Do you find among those persons 
who oppose this Fugitive Slave Law any 
admission whatever, that any law ought 
to be passed to carry into effect the sol- 
emn stipulations of the Constitution? 
Tell me any such case ; tell me if any 
resolution was adopted by the conven- 
tion at Syracuse favorable to the carry- 
ing out of the Constitution. Xotone! 
The fact is. Gentlemen, they oppose the 
constitutional provision; they oppose the 
whole! Not a man of them admits that 
there oiight to be any law on the sub- 
ject. They deny, altogether, that the 



provisions of the Constitution ought to 
be caiTied into effect. Look at the pro- 
ceedings of the antislavery conventions 
in Ohio, Massachusetts, and at Syra- 
cuse, in the State of New York. What 
do they say? "That, so help them 
God, no colored man shall be sent from 
the State of New York back to his mas- 
ter in Virginia ! " Do nut they say that? 
And, to the fulfilment of that they 
"pledge their lives, their fortunes, and 
their sacred honor." Their sacred hon- 
or! They pledge their sacred honor to 
violate the Constitution; they pledge 
their sacred honor to commit treason 
against tlte laws of their country I 

I have already stated. Gentlemen, 
what your observation of these things 
must have taught you. I will only re- 
cur to the subject for a moment, for the 
purpose of persuading you, as public 
men and private men, as good men and 
patriotic men, that you ought, to the 
extent of your ability and influence, to 
see to it that such laws are established 
and maintained as shall keep you, and 
the South, and the West, and all the 
country, together, on the terms of the 
Constitution. I say, that what is de- 
manded of us is to fulfil our constitu- 
tional duties, and to do for the South 
what the South has a right to demand. 

Gentlemen, I have been some time 
before the public. My character is 
known, my life is before the country. 
I profess to love liberty as much as any 
man living ; but I profess to love Amer- 
ican liberty, that liberty which is se- 
cured to the country by the government 
under which we live; and I have no 
great opinion of that other and higher 
liberty which disregards the restraints 
of law and of the Constitution. I hold 
the Constitution of the United States to 
be the bulwark, the only bulwark, of our 
liberties and of our national character. 
I do not mean that you should become 
slaves under the Constitution. That is 
not American liberty. That is uut the 
liberty of the Union for which our fathers 
fought, that liberty which lias givt-n us a 
right to l)e known and respected all over 
the world. I mean only to say, that I am 
for constitutional liberty. It Ls enough 



636 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



for me to be as free as the Constitution 
of the country makes me. 

Now, Gentlemen, let me say, that, as 
much as I respect the character of the 
people of Western New York, as much 
as I wish to retain their good opinion, if 
I should ever hereafter be placed in any 
situation in public life, let me tell you 
now that you must not expect from me 
the slightest variation, even of a hair's 
breadth, from the Constitution of the 
United States. I am a Northern man. 
I was born at the North, educated at the 
North, have lived all my days at the 
North. I know five hundred Northern 
men to one Southern man. My sympa- 
thies, all my sympathies, my love of lib- 
erty for all mankind, of every color, 
are the same as yours. My affections 
and hopes in that respect are exactly 
like yours. I wish to see all men free, 
all men happy. I have few personal 
associations out of the Northern States. 
My people are your people. And yet 
I am told sometimes that I am not a 
friend of liberty, because I am not a 
Free Soil man. ^Vhat am I ? What 
was I ever ? What shall I be hereafter, 
if I could sacrifice, for any considera- 
tion, that love of American liberty which 
has glowed in my breast since my in- 
fancy, and which, I hope, will never 
leave me till I expire ? 

Gentlemen, I regret that slavery exists 
in the Southern States; but it is clear 
and certain that Congress has no power 
over it. It may be, however, that, in 
the dispensations of Providence, some 
remedy for this evil may occur, or may 
be hoj^ed for hereafter. But, in the 
mean time, I hold to the Constitution of 
the United States, and you need never 
expect from me, under any circum- 
stances, that I shall falter from it; that 
I shall be otherwise than frank and de- 
cisive. I would not part with my char- 
acter as a man of firmness and decision, 
and honor and principle, for all that the 
world possesses. You will find me true 
to the North, because all my sympathies 
are with the North. My affections, my 
children, my hopes, my everything, are 
with the North. But when I stand up 
before my country, as one appointed to 



administer the Constitution of the coun- 
try, by the blessing of God I will be 
just. 

Gentlemen, I expect to be libelled and 
abused. Yes, libelled and abused. But 
it does not disturb me. I have not lost 
a night's rest for a great many years 
from any such cause. I have some 
talent for sleeping. And why should 
I not expect to be libelled ? Is not 
the Constitution of the United States 
libelled and abused ? Do not some peo- 
ple call it a covenant with hell ? Is not 
Washington libelled and abused ? Is h3 
not called a bloodhound on the track of 
the African negro ? Are not our fathers 
libelled and abused by their own chil- 
dren V And ungrateful children they 
are. How, then, shall I escape? I do 
not expect to escape ; but, knowing these 
things, I impute no bad motive to any 
men of character and fair standing. 
The great settlement measures of the 
last Congress are laws. Many respect- 
able men, representatives from yovir own 
State and from other States, did not 
concur in them. I do not impute any 
bad motive to them. I am ready to be- 
lieve they are Americans all. They may 
not have thought these laws necessary; 
or they may have thought that they 
would be enacted without their concui-- 
rence. Let all that pass away. If they 
are now men who wiU stand by what is 
done, and stand up for their country, 
and say that, as these laws were passed 
by a majority of the whole country, we 
must stand by them and live by them, I 
will respect them all as friends. 

Now, Gentlemen, allow me to ask of 
you, AVhat do you think would have 
been the condition of the country, at 
this time, if these laws had not been 
passed by the last Congress ? if the ques- 
tion of the Texas boundary had not been 
settled ? if New Mexico and Utah had 
been left as desert-places, and no gov- 
ernment had been provided for them ? 
And if the other great object to which 
State laws had ojiposed so many obsta- 
cles, the restoration of fugitives, had not 
been provided foi', I ask, what would 
have been the state of this country now? 
You men of Erie County, you men of 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



637 



New York, I conjure you to go home 
to-niglit and meditate ou this subject. 
What would have been the state of this 
country, now, at this moment, if these 
laws had not been passed V 1 have 
given my opinion that we should have 
had a civil war. I refer it to you, there- 
fore, for your consideration; meditate 
on it; do not be carried away by any 
abstract notions or metaphysical ideas ; 
think practically on the great question, 
AV'hat would have been the condition of 
the United States at this moment, if we 
had not settled these agitating ques- 
tions? I repeat, in my opinion, there 
would have been a civil war. 

Gentlemen, will you allow me, for a 
moment, to advert to myself V I have 
been a long time in public life ; of course, 
not many years remain to me. At the 
commencement of 1850, I looked anx- 
iously at the condition of the country, 
and I thought the inevitable consequence 
of leaving the existing controversies un- 
adjusted would be civil war. I saw dan- 
ger in leaving Utah and New Mexico 
without any government, a prey to the 
power of Texas. I saw the condition of 
things arising from the interference of 
some of the States in defeating the oper- 
ation of the Constitution in respect to 
the restoration of fugitive slaves. I saw 
these things, and I made up my mind 
to encounter whatever might betide me 
in the attempt to avert the impending 
catastrophe. And allow me to add some- 
thing which is not entirely unworthy of 
notice. A member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives told me that he had pre- 
pared a list of one hundred and forty 
speeches which had been made in Con- 
gress on the slavery question. " That is 
a very large number, my friend," I said; 
" but how is that? " " \Vliy," said he, 
"a Northern man gets up and speaks 
with considerable power and fluency 
until the Speaker's hanamer knocks him 
down. Then gets up a Southern man, 
and he speaks with more warmth. He 
is nearer the sun, and he comes out with 
the greater fervor against the North. 
He speaks his hour, and is in turn 
knocked down. And so it has gone on, 
until I have got one hundi-ed and forty 



speeches on my list." " Well," said I, 
" where are tliey, and what are they? " 
"If the speaker," said he, "was a 
Northern man, he held forth against 
slavery; and if he was from the South, 
he abused the North; and all these 
speeches were sent by tlie members to 
their own localities, where they served 
only to aggravate the local irritation al- 
ready existing. No man reads both 
sides. The other side of the argument 
is not heard; and the speeches sent tVoni 
Washington in such prodigious num- 
bers, iii^^tead of tending to conciliation, 
do but increase, in both sections of the 
Union, an excitement already of the 
most dangerous character." 

Gentlemen, in this state of things, I 
saw that something must be done. It 
was impossible to look with indifference 
on a danger of so formidable a ciiar- 
acter. I am a ^lassachusetls man, and 
I bore in mind what Massachusetts 
has ever been to the Constitution and 
the Union. I felt the importance of 
the duty which devolved upon one to 
whom she had so long confided the trust 
of representing her in either house of 
Congress. As I honored her, and re- 
spected her, I felt that 1 wiis serving 
her in my endeavors to promote the wel- 
fare of the whole country. 

And now suppose. Gentlemen, that, 
on the occasion in question, I had taken 
a different course. If I Jnay allude so 
particularly to an individual so insig- 
nificant as myself, suppose that, on the 
7th of March, 18.30, instead of nuiking 
a speech that would, so far as my power 
went, reconcile the country, I had joined 
in the general clamor of tiie Antislavery 
party. Suppose I had said, " I will have 
nothing to do with any accommodation ; 
we will admit no cuniproniise; we will 
let Texas invade New Mexico; we will 
leave New Mexico and Utah to take 
care of themselves; we will plant our- 
selves on the Wilmot Proviso, let the 
consequences be what they may." Now, 
Gentlemen, I d(j not mean to say that 
great conseipiences would iiave fallowed 
from such a course on my part; but .sup- 
pose I had taken such a course. How 
could I be blamed for it? Was I not a 



638 



RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 



Northern man? Did I not know Massa- 
chusetts feelings and prejudices? But 
what of that? I am an American. I 
was made a whole man, and I did not 
mean to make myself half a one. I felt 
that I had a duty to perform to my 
country, to my own reputation; for I 
flattered myself that a service of forty 
years had given me some character, on 
which I had a right to repose for my 
justification in the performance of a 
duty attended with some degree of local 
unpopularity. I thought it my duty to 
pursue this course, and I did not care 
what was to be the consequence. I felt 
it was my duty, in a very alarming 
crisis, to come out; to go for my coun- 
try, and my whole country ; and to ex- 
ert any power I had to keep that coun- 
tiy together. I cared for nothing, I 
was afraid of nothing, but I meant to 
do my duty. Duty performed makes a 
man happy ; duty neglected makes a 
man unhappy. I therefore, in the face 



of all discouragements and all dangers, 
was ready to go forth and do what I 
thought my country, your country, de- 
manded of me. And, Gentlemen, al- 
low me to say here to-day, that if the 
fate of John Rogers had stared me in 
the face, if I had seen the stake, if I 
had heard the fagots already crack- 
ling, by the blessing of Almighty God 
I would have gone on and discharged 
the duty which I thought my country 
called upon me to perform. I would 
have become a martyr to save that 
country. 

And now. Gentlemen, farewell. Live 
and be happy. Live like patriots, live 
like Americans. Live in the enjoyment 
of the inestimable blessings which your 
fathers prepared for you; and if any 
thing that I may do hereafter should be 
inconsistent, in the slightest degree, with 
the opinions and principles which I have 
this day submitted to you, then discard 
me for ever from your recollection. 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE LAYING OF THE CORNER-STONE OF THE 
ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL, ON THE 4th OF JULY, 185LI 



Fellow-Citizens, — I greet you well ; 
I give you joy, on the return of this an- 
niversary; and I felicitate you, also, on 
the more particular purpose of which 
this ever-memorable day has been chosen 
to witness the fulfilment. Hail! all 
hail! I see before and around me a 
mass of faces, glowing with cheerful- 
ness and patriotic pride. I see thou- 
sands of eyes turned towards other eyes, 
all sparkling with gratification and de- 
light. This is the New World! This 
is America ! This is Washington ! and 
this the Capitol of the United States ! 
And where else, among the nations, can 
the seat of government be surrounded, 
on any day of any year, by those who 
have more reason to rejoice in the bless- 
ings which they possess? Nowhere, fel- 
low-citizens! assuredly, nowhere! Let 
us, then, meet this rising sun with joy 
and thanksgiving! 

This is that day of the year which an- 
nounced to mankind the great fact of 
American Independence. This fresh 
and brilliant morning blesses our vision 
with another beholding of the birthday 
of our nation; and we see that nation, 
of recent origin, now among the most 
considerable and powerful, and spread- 
ing over the continent from sea to sea. 

Among the first colonists from Eu- 
rope to this part of America, there were 

1 The followinff motto stands upon the title- 
page of the original pamphlet edition: — 

"Stet OapiColium 
Fulgens ; 

late nomen in ultiaitus 
Extendat oras." 



some, doubtless, who contemplated the 
distant consequences of their under- 
taking, and who saw a great futurity. 
But, in general, their hopes were limited 
to the enjoyment of a safe asylum from 
tyranny, religious and civil, and to re- 
spectable subsistence, by industry and 
toil. A thick veil hid our times from 
their view. But the progress of Amer- 
ica, however slow, could not but at 
length awaken genius, and attract the 
attention of mankind. 

In the early part of the second cen- 
tury of our history, Bishop Berkeley, 
who, it will be remembered, had resided 
for some time in Newport, in Ivliodu 
Island, wrote his well-known "Verses 
on the Prospect of Planting Akts and 
Leaknixg in Ameuica." The la^st 
stanza of this little poem seems to 
have been produced by a high poetical 
inspiration : — 

" Westward the course of empire takes its way; 
Tlie four tirst acts already past, 
A fifth shall close the drama with the day : 
Time's noblest oll'spriiig is the hust." 

This extraordinary prophecy may be 
considered only as the result of long 
foresight and iinconiinon sagacity; of a 
foresight and sagacity stimulaled, nev- 
ertheless, by excited feeling and high 
enthusiasm. So clear a vision of wliat 
America would become wius not loundfd 
on square miles, or on existing num- 
bers, or on any common laws of statis- 
tics. It was an intuitive glance into 
futurity; it was a grand conception, 
strong, ardent, glowing, enjbracing all 



640 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



time since the creation of the world, 
and all regions of which that world is 
composed, and judging of the future by 
just analogy with the past. And the 
inimitable imagery and beauty with 
which the thought is expressed, joined 
to the conception itself, render it one 
of the most striking passages in our lan- 
guage. 

On the day of the Declaration of In- 
dependence our illustrious fathers per- 
formed the first scene in the last great 
act of this drama; one in real impor- 
tance infinitely exceeding that for which 
the great English poet invokes 

" A muse of fire, . . . 
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act. 
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene! " 

The Muse inspiring our fathers was 
, the Genius of Liberty, all on "fire with 
a sense of oppression, and a resolution 
to throw it off; the whole world was 
the stage, and higher characters than 
princes trod it; and, instead of mon- 
archs, countries and nations and the 
age beheld the swelling scene. How 
well the characters were cast, and how 
well each acted his part, and what emo- 
tions the whole performance excited, let 
history, now and hereafter, tell. 

At a subsequent period, but before the 
Declaration of Independence, the Bishop 
of St. Asaph published a discourse, in 
which the following remarkable passages 
are found : — 

"It is difficult for man to look into the 
destiny of future ages ; the designs of Provi- 
dence are vast and complicated, and our 
own powers are too narrow to admit of much 
satisfaction to our curiosity. But when we 
see many great and powerful causes con- 
stantly at work, we cannot doubt of their 
producing proportionable effects. 

" The colonies in North America have 
not only taken root and acquired strength, 
but seem hastening with an accelerated progress 
to such a powerful state as may introduce a new 
and importatit change in human affairs. 

" Descended from ancestors of the most 
improved and enlightened part of the Old 
World, they receive, as it were by inheri- 
tance, all the improvements and discoveries 
of their mother country. And it happens 
fortunately for them to commence their 
flourishing state at a time when the human 



understanding has attained to the free use 
of its powers, and has learned to act with 
vigor and certainty. They may avail them- 
selves, not only of the experience and in- 
dustry, but even of the errors and mistakes, 
of former days. Let it be considered for 
how many ages a great part of the world 
appears not to have thought at all ; how 
many more they have been busied in form- 
ing systems and conjectures, while reason 
has been lost in a labyrinth of words, and 
they never seem to have suspected on what 
frivolous matters their minds were em- 
ployed. 

" And let it be well understood what 
rapid improvements, what important dis- 
coveries, have been made, in a few years, 
by a few countries, with our own at their 
head, which have at last discovered the 
right method of using their faculties. 

" May we not reasonably expect that a 
number of provinces possessed of these ad- 
vantages and quickened by mutual emula- 
tion, with only the common progress of the 
human mind, should very considerably en- 
large the boundaries of science 1 

" The vast continent itself, over which 
they are gradually spreading, may be con- 
sidered as a treasure yet untouched of 
natural productions that shall hereafter 
afford ample matter for commerce and con- 
templation. And if we reflect what a stock 
of knowledge may be accunudated by the 
constant progress of industry and observa- 
tion, fed with fresh supplies from the stores 
of nature, assisted sometimes by those happy 
strokes of chance which mock all the pow- 
ers of invention, and sometimes by those 
superior characters which arise occasionally 
to instruct and enlighten the world, it is 
difficult even to imagine to what height of 
improvement their discoveries may extend. 

" And perhaps they may make as considera- 
ble advances in the arts of civil government and 
the conduct of life. We have reason to be 
proud, and even jealous, of our excellent 
constitution ; but those equitable principles 
on which it was formed, an equal repre- 
sentation (the best discovery of political 
wisdom), and a just and commodious distri- 
bution of power, which with us were the 
price of civil wars, and the rewards of the 
virtues and sufferings of our ancestors, de- 
scend to them as a natural inheritance, 
without toil or pain. 

" But must they rest here, as in the utmost 
effort of human genius ? Can chance and time, 
the wisdom and the experience of public men, 
suggest no new remedy against the evils which 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



641 



vices and ambition are perpetually apt to 
cause 1 May they not hope, without pre- 
sumption, to preserve a greater ztal for 
piety and public devotion than we have 
(lone 1 For sure it can hardly happen to 
them, as it has to us, that, wlien relifxion is 
best understood and rendered most puro and 
reasonable, then should be the precise time 
when many cease to believe and practise it, 
and all in general become most indifferent 
to it. 

" May they not possibly be more success- 
ful than tlicir mother country has been in 
preserving that reverence and authority 
which are due to the laws ^ to those who 
make, and to those who execute them 1 
Mci/ not a method be invented of procuring some 
tolenible share of the comforts of life to those in- 
ferior useful ranks of men to whose indtistn/ we 
(ire indebted for the whole? Time and disci- 
jiline may discover some means to correct the ex- 
treme inequalities of condition between the rich 
and the poor, so dantierous to the innucrnre and 
happiness of both. They may fortunately be 
led by habit and choice to despise that lux- 
ury which is considered with us the true 
enjoyment of wealth. They may have lit- 
tle relish for that ceaseless hurry of amuse- 
ments which is pursued in this country 
witliout pleasure, exercise, or employment. 
And perhaps, after trying some of our follies 
and caprices, and rejecting the rest, they 
may be led by reason and experiment to 
that old simplicity which was first pointed 
out by nature, and has produced those 
models which we still admire in arts, elo- 
quence, and manners. The diversity of new 
scenes and situations, which so many growinrj 
states must necessarily pass through, may intro- 
duce changes in the fluctuating opinions and 
manners of men which we can form no conception 
of; and not only the gracious disposition of 
Providence, but the visible preparation of 
causes, seems to indicate strong tendencies 
towards a general improvement." 

Fellow-citizens, this "gracious dispo- 
sition of Providence," and this "visible 
preparation of causes," at length brought 
on the hour for decisive action. On the 
4th of July, 1776, the Representatives of 
the United States of America, in Con- 
gress assembled, declared that these 
United Colonies are, and of right ought 

to he, FREK AXD IXDKPENDEXT St.VTK.S. 

This Declaration, made by mo.st patri- 
otic and resolute men, trusting in the 
justice of their cause and the protection 



of Heaven, and yet made not without 
deep solicitude and anxiety, has now 
stood for seventy-five years, and still 
stands. It was sealed in blood. It has 
m<'t dangers, an<l overenme thfin; it ha.s 
had enemies, and comjuered them; it 
has had detractors, and abaslied tlicm 
all; it has iiad doubting friends, but it 
has cleared all doubts away; and now, 
to-day, raising its august form higlier 
than the clouds, twenty millions of peo- 
ple contemplate it witli hallowed love, 
and the world beholds it, and the con- 
sequences which have followed from it, 
with profound admiration. 

This anniversary animates and glai- 
dens and unites all American hearts. 
On other days of the year we may be 
party men, indulging in controversies, 
more or less important to the public 
good ; we may have likes and dislikes, 
and we may maintain our political dif- 
ferences, often with warm, and some- 
times with angry feelings. But to-day 
we are Americans all; and all nothing 
but Americans. As the great luminary 
over our heads, dissipating mists and 
fogs, now cheers the whole hemisphere, 
so do the associations connected with 
this day disperse all cloudy and sullen 
weather in the minds and hearts of true 
Americans. Every man's heart swells 
within him; every man's port and bear- 
ing become somewhat more proud and 
lofty, as he remembers that seventy-five 
years have rolled away, and that the 
great inheritance of liberty is still his; 
his, undiminished and unimpaired; his 
in all its original glory; his to enjoy, 
his to protect, and his to transmit to 
future generations. 

Fellow-citizens, this inheritance which 
we enjoy to-day is not only an inheri- 
tance of liberty, but of our ow n ]ieculiar 
American liberty. Liberty has existed 
in other times, in other countries, and in 
other forms. There has been a firecian 
liberty, bold and powerful, full of spirit, 
eloquence, and fire; a liberty which pro- 
duced multitudes of great men, and has 
transTuitted one immortal name, the 
name of Demosthent's, to jwisterity. But 
still it w:us a liberty of disconnected 
states, sometimes united, indeed, by 



41 



642 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



temporary leagues and confederacies, but 
often involved in wars between them- 
selves. The sword of Sparta turned its 
sharpest edge against Athens, enslaved 
her, and devastated Greece; and, in her 
turn, Sparta was compelled to bend be- 
fore the power of Thebes. And let it 
ever be remembered, especially let the 
truth sink deep into all American minds, 
tliat it was the want of union among 
lier several states which finally gave the 
mastery of all Greece to Philip of Mace- 
don. 

And there has also been a Roman lib- 
erty, a proud, ambitious, domineering 
spirit, professing free and popular prin- 
ciples in Rome itself, but, even in the 
best days of the republic, ready to carry 
slavery and chains into her provinces, 
and through every country over which 
her easfles could be borne. What was 
the liberty of Spain, or Gaul, or Ger- 
many, or Britain, in the days of Rome? 
Did true constitutional liberty then exist? 
As the Roman empire declined, her prov- 
inces, not instructed in the principles of 
free popular government, one after an- 
other declined also, and when Rome her- 
self fell, in the end, all fell together. 

I have said. Gentlemen, that our in- 
heritance is an inheritance of American 
liberty. That liberty is characteristic, 
peculiar, and altogether our own. Noth- 
ing like it existed in former times, nor 
was known in the most enlightened 
states of antiquity; while with us its 
principles have become interwoven into 
the minds of individual men, connected 
with our daily opinions, and our daily 
habits, until it is, if I may so say, an 
element of social as well as of political 
life; and the consequence is, that to 
whatever region an American citizen 
carries himself, he takes with him, fully 
developed in his own understanding and 
experience, our American principles and 
opinions,' and becomes ready at once, in 
co-operation with others, to apply them 
to the formation of new governments. 
Of this a most wonderful instance may 
be seen in the history of the State of 
California. 

On a former occasion I ventured to 
remark, that "it is very difficult to es- 



tablish a free conservative government 
for the equal advancement of all the in- 
terests of society. What has Germany 
done, learned Germany, more full of 
ancient lore than all the world beside? 
What has Italy done? What have they 
done who dwell on the spot where Cicero 
lived ? They have not the power of self- 
government which a common town-meet- 
ing, with us, possesses Yes, I 

say that those persons who have gone 
from our town-meetings to dig gold in 
California are more fit to make a repub- 
lican government than any body of men 
in Germany or Italy; because they have 
learned this one great lesson, that there 
is no security without law, and that, 
under the circumstances in which they 
are placed, where there is no military 
authority to cut their throats, there is no 
sovereign will but the will of the major- 
ity; that, therefore, if they remain, they 
must submit to that will." And this I 
believe to be strictly true. 

Now, fellow-citizens, if your patience 
will hold out, I will venture, before 
proceeding to the more appropriate and 
particular duties of the day, to state, in 
a few words, what I take these Ameri- 
can political principles in substance to 
be. They consist, as I think, in the 
first place, in the establishment of popu- 
lar governments, on the basis of repre- 
sentation; for it is plain that a pure 
democracy, like that which existed in 
some of the states of Greece, in which 
every individual had a direct vote in the 
enactment of all laws, cannot possibly 
exist in a country of wide extent. This 
representation is to be made as equal as 
circumstances will allow. Now, this 
principle of popular representation, pre- 
vailing either in all the branches of gov- 
ernment, or in some of them, has ex- 
isted in these States almost from the 
days of the settlements at Jamestown 
and Plymouth ; borrowed, no doubt, 
from the example of the popular branch 
of the British legislature. The repre- 
sentation of the people in the British 
House of Commons was, however, origi- 
nally very unequal, and is yet not equal. 
Indeed, it may be doubted whether the 
appearance of knights and burgesses, as- 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



643 



serabling on the summons of the crown, 
was not iuteiided at first as an assistance 
and support to the royal prerogative, in 
matters of revenue and taxation, rather 
than as a mode of ascertaining popular 
opinion. Nevertheless, representation 
had a popular origin, and savored more 
and more of the character of that origin, 
as it acquired, by slow degrees, greater 
and greater strength, in the actual gov- 
ernment of the country. The constitu- 
tion of the House of Commons was cer- 
tainly a form of representation, how- 
ever unequal; numbers were counted, 
and majorities prevailed; and when our 
ancestors, acting u^wn this example, in- 
troduced more equality of representa- 
tion, the idea assumed a more rational 
and distinct shaj^e. At any rate, this 
manner of exercising popular power was 
familiar to our fathers when they settled 
on this continent. They adopted it, and 
generation has risen up after generation, 
all acknowledging it, and all learning its 
practice and its forms. 

The next fundamental principle in 
oiu" system is, that the will of the ma- 
jority, fairly expressed through the 
means of representation, shall have 
tlie force of law; and it is quite evi- 
dent that, in a country without thrones 
or aristocracies or privileged castes or 
classes, there can be no other founda- 
tion for law to stand upon. 

And, as the necessary result of this, 
the third element is, that the law is the 
supreme rule for the governm eiiToi al l. 
The great sentiment of Alcrcus', so beau- 
tifuUy presented to us by Sir William 
Jones, is absolutely indispensable to the 
construction and maintenance of our 
political systems : — 

" What constitutes a state"? 
Not high-raised battlement or labored mound, 
Thick wall or moated fijate ; 
Not cities proud, with spires and turrets 

crowned ; 
Not bays and broad-armed ports, 
Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies 

ride; 
Not starred and spangled courts, 
Where low-browed baseness wafts perfume to 

pride. 
No: Mkn, high-minded JIen, 
With powers as far above dull brutes endued, 
In forest, brake, or den, 



As beasts excel coM rocks and brambles rude: 

Men who flicir duties kiinw. 

But know their rights, and, knowing, dare 

nmintain ; 
Prevent the long-aimed blow, 
And crush the tyrant while they rend the 

chain: 
These cdustitute a state; 
And SoVKHKir.N Law, that state's collected 

will, 
O'er thrones and globes elate 
Sits empress, crowning good, repressing ill." 

And, finally, another most important 
part of the great fabric of American 
liberty is, that there shall be written j 
constitutions, founded on tlie imme- j 
diate authority of the people them- 
selves, and regulating and restraining 
all the powers conferred upon govern- 
ment, whether legislative, executive, or 
judicial. 

This, fellow-citizens, I suppose to be 
a just summary of our American prin- 
ciples, and I have on this occasion 
sought to express them in the plain- 
est and in the fewest words. The sum- 
mary may not be entirely exact, but I 
hope it may be suificiently so to make 
manifest to the rising generation among 
ourselves, and to those elsewhere who 
may choose to inquire into the nature 
of our political institutions, the general 
theory upon which they are founded. 

And I now proceed to add, tliat the 
strong and deep-settled conviction of all 
intelligent persons amongst us is, that, 
in order to support a useful and wise 
government upon these popular princi- 
l)les, the general education of the peo- 
ple, and the wide dift'usiou of pure 
morality and true religion, are indis- 
pensable. Individual virtue is a part 
of public virtue. It is diflicult to con- 
ceive how there can remain morality in 
the government when it shall cease to 
exist among the people ; or how the 
aggregate of the political institutions, 
all the organs of which consist only of 
men, should bo wise, and boucru-ent, 
and competent to inspire confidence, if 
the opposite (qualities belong to the in- 
dividuals who constitute those organs, 
and make up that aggregate. 

And now, felluw-citizeus, I take leave 
of this part of the duty which I j-ro- 



644 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



posed to perform; and, once more fe- 
licitating you and myself that our eyes 
have seen the light of this blessed morn- 
ing, and that our ears have heard the 
shouts with which joyous thousands wel- 
come its return, and joining with you in 
the hope that every revolving year may 
renew these rejoicings to the end of 
time, I proceed to address you, shortly, 
upon the particular occasion of our as- 
sembling here to-day. 

Fellow-citizens, by the act of Congress 
of the oOth of September, 1850, provis- 
ion was made for the extension of the 
Capitol, according to such plan as might 
be approved by the President of the 
United States, and for the necessary 
sums to be expended, under his direc- 
tion, by such architect as he might ap- 
point. This measure was imperatively 
demanded, for the use of the legislative 
and judiciary departments, the public 
libraries, the occasional accommodation 
of the chief executive magistrate, and 
for other objects. No act of Congress 
incurring a large expenditure has re- 
ceived more general approbation from 
the people. The President has pro- 
ceeded to execute this law. He has 
approved a plan; he has appointed an 
architect; and all things are now ready 
for the commencement of the work. 

The anniversary of national indepen- 
dence appeared to afford an auspicious 
occasion for laying, the foundation-stone 
of the additional building. That cere- 
mony has now been performed by the 
President himself, in the presence and 
view of this multitude. He has thought 
that the day and the occasion made a 
united and imperative call for some 
short address to the people here as- 
sembled; and it is at his request that 
I have appeared before you to perform 
that part of the duty which was deemed 
incumbent on us. 

Beneath the stone is deposited, among 
other things, a list of which will be pub- 
lished, the following brief account of the 
proceedings of this day, in my hand- 
writing: — 

"On tlie morning of the first day of the 
seventy-sixth year of the Independence of 



the United States of Amcricn, in the city 
of Waslnngton, being the 4th day of July, 
1851, this stone, designed as the corner- 
stone of the extension of the Capitol, ac- 
cording to a plan approved by the Presi- 
dent, in pursuance of an act of Congress, 
was laid by 

MILLARD FILLMORE, 

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

assisted by the Grand Master of the Ma- 
sonic Lodges, in tlie presence of many 
members of Congress, of oificers of tlie 
Executive and Judiciary Departments, Na- 
tional, State, and District, of ofiicers of the 
army and navy, tlie corporate authorities 
of this and neighboring cities, many asso- 
ciations, civil and military and masonic, 
members of the Smithsonian Institution 
and National Institute, professors of col- 
leges and teachers of schools of the Dis- 
trict, with their students and pupils, and a 
vast concourse of people from places near 
and remote, including a few surviving gen- 
tlemen who witnessed the laying of the 
corner-stone of the Capitol by President 
"Washington, on the 18th day of September, 
A. D. 1793. 

" If, therefore, it shall be hereafter the 
will of God that this structure shall fall 
from its base, that its foundation be up- 
turned, and this deposit brought to the eyes 
of men, be it tlien known, tliat on tliis daj' 
the Union of the United States of America 
stands firm, that their Constitution still 
exists unimpaired, and with all its original 
usefulness and glory ; growing every day 
stronger and stronger in tlie affections of 
the great body of the American people, 
anil attracting more and more the admira- 
tion of the world. And all here assembled, 
whether belonging to public life or to pri- 
vate life, with hearts devoutly thankful to 
Almighty God for the preservation of the 
liberty and happiness of the country, unite 
in sincere and fervent prayers that this de- 
posit, and the walls and arclies, the domes 
and towers, the columns and entablatures, 
now to be erected over it, may endure for 
ever ! 

" GoD SAVE THE UnITED StATES OF 

America ! 

"Daniel Webster, 

Secretary of State of the United States." 

Fellow-citizens, fifty-eight years ago 
Washington stood on this spot to exe- 
cute a duty like that whicli has now been 
performed. He then laid the corner-stone 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL 



045 



of the original Capitol. He was at the 
head of the goveniiueut, at that time 
weak in resources, burdened witii debt, 
just struggling into political existence 
and respectability, and agitated by the 
heaving waves which were overturning 
Eui'opean thrones. But even then, in 
many important respects, the govern- 
ment wa« strong. It was strong in 
Washington's own great character; it 
was strong in the wisdom and patriotism 
of other eminent public meu, his political 
associates and fellow-laborers ; and it was 
strong in the affections of the people. 



Since that 



time astonishing 



changes 



have been wrought in tlie condition and 
prospects of tho American people; and 
a degree of progress witnessed with 
which the world can furnish no parallel. 
As we review the course of that progress, 
wontler and amazement arrest our atten- 
tion at every step. The present occasion, 
although allowing of no lengtliened re- 
marks, may yet, perhaps, admit of a 
short comparative statement of impor- 
tant subjects of national interest as they 
existed at that day, and as they now ex- 
ist. I have adopted for this purpose the 
tabular form of statement, as being the 
most brief and significant. 



COMPARATIVE T^VBLE. 

Number of States 

Representatives and Senators in Congress 

Population of the United States 

Population of Boston 

Population of Baltimore 

Population of Philadelphia 

Population of New York (city) 

Population of Washington 

Population of Richmond 

Population of Charleston 

Amount of receipts into the Treasury 

Amount of expenditures 

Amount of imports 

Amount of exports 

Amount of tonnage (tons) 

Area of the United States in square miles 

Rank and file of the army 

MiUtia (enrolled) 

Navy of the United States (vessels) 

Navy armament (ordnance) 

Treaties and conventions with foreign powers .... 

Liglu-houscs and light-boats 

Expenditures for ditto 

Area of the Capitol 

Number of miles of railroad in operation 

Cost of ditto 

Number of miles in course of construction 

Lines of electric telegraph, in miles 

Number of post-offices 

Number of miles of post-route 

Amount of revenue from post-offices 

Amount of expenditures of Post-Office Department . . 

Number of miles of mail transportation 

Number of colleges 

Public libraries 

Volumes in ditto 

School libraries 

Volumes in ditto 

Emigrants from Europe to the United States 

Coinage at the Alint 



Year 1793. 


Year 1861. 


15 


31 


135 


295 


3,929,-328 


23,267,498 


18,038 


136,871 


13,503 


109,054 


42,520 


409,046 


33,121 


515,507 


* 


40,075 


4,000 


27,582 


16,359 


42,983 


$5,720,024 


$52,312,980 


§7,529,575 


$48,005,879 


$31,000,000 


$215,725,995 


$20,100,000 


$217,517,130 


520,764 


3,772,440 


805,461 


3,:!14,365 


5,120 


10,000 


. 


2,006,450 


(None.) 


76 


• • ■ 


2,012 


9 


90 


12 


372 


$12,061 


$529,265 


i acre. 


4i acres. 


• • • 


10.287 


. 


$306,607,954 


• • 


10,092 


• 


15,000 


209 


21,551 


5.6 12 


1!)6,2'.K) 


$104,747 


$0,727,867 


.'J72,()40 


$6,024,507 


, 


52,465,724 


19 


121 


35 


604 


75,0(K) 


2,201,632 


• • * 


10.000 


• * • 


2.0<MM)00 


10,000 


290.610 


$9,064 


$52,019,466 



646 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



In respect to the growth of Western 
trade and commerce, I extract a few 
sentences from a very vahiable address 
before the Historical Society of Ohio, 
by William D. Gallagher, Esq., 1850: — 

"A few facts will exhibit as well as a 
Tolume the wonderful growth of Western 
trade and commerce. Previous to the year 
1800, some eight or ten keel-boats, of twenty 
or twenty-five tons each, performed all the 
carrying trade between Cincinnati and 
Pittsburg. In 1802 the first government 
vessel appeared on Lake Erie. In 1811 the 
first steamboat (the Orleans) was launched 
at Pittsburg. In 1826 the waters of Michi- 
gan were first ploughed by the keel of a 
steamboat, a pleasure trip to Green Bay 
being planned and executed in the summer 
of this year. In 1832 a steamboat first ap- 
peared at Chicago. At the present time the 
entire number of steamboats running on the 
Mississijipi and Ohio and their tributaries is 
more probably over than under six hundred, 
the aggregate tonnage of which is not short 
of one hundred and forty thousand ; a larger 
number of steamboats than England can 
claim, and a greater steam commercial 
marine than that employed by Great Brit- 
ain and her dependencies." 

And now, fellow-citizens, having stat- 
ed to you this infallible proof of the 
growth and prosperity of the nation, I 
ask you. and I would ask every man, 
whether the government which has been 
over us has proved itself an infliction 
or a curse to the country, or any part 
of it? 

Ye men of the South, of all the origi- 
nal Southern States, what say you to all 
this? Are you, or any of you, ashamed 
of this great work of your fathers ? 
Your fathers were not they who stoned 
the prophets and killed them. They 
were among the prophets ; they were of 
the prophets ; they were themselves the 
prophets. 

Ye men of Virginia, what do you say 
to all this? Ye men of the Potomac, 
dwelling along the shores of that river 
on which Washington lived and died, 
and where his remains now rest, ye, so 
many of whom may see the domes of 
the Capitol from your own homes, what 
say ye? 

Ye men of James River and the Bay, 



places consecrated by the early settle- 
ment of yom- Commonwealth, what do 
you say? Do you desire, from the soil 
of your State, or as you travel to the 
North, to see these halls vacated, their 
beauty and ornaments destroyed, and 
their national usefulness gone for ever? 

Ye men beyond the Blue Ridge, many 
thousands of whom are nearer to this 
Capitol than to the seat of government 
of your own State, what do you think 
of breaking this great association into 
fragments of States and of people? I 
know that some of you, and I believe 
that you all, would be almost as much 
shocked at the announcement of such a 
catastrojihe, as if you were to be in- 
formed that the Blue Ridge itself would 
soon totter from its base. And ye men 
of Western Virginia, who occupy the 
great slope from the top of the Alle- 
ghanies to Ohio and Kentucky, what 
benefit do you propose to yourselves 
by disunion? If you "secede," what 
do you " secede " from, and what do you 
" accede " to? Do you look for the cur- 
rent of the Ohio to change, and to bring 
you and your commerce to the tide- 
waters of Eastern rivers? What man 
in his senses can suppose that you 
would remain part and parcel of Vir- 
ginia a month after Virginia should 
have ceased to be part and parcel of the 
United States? 

The secession of Virginia ! The se- 
cession of Virginia, whether alone or 
in company, is most improbable, the 
greatest of all improbabilities. Vir- 
ginia, to her everlasting honor, acted 
a great part in framing and establishing 
the present Constitution. She has had 
her reward and her distinction. Seven of 
her noble sons have each filled the Presi- 
dency, and enjoyed the highest honors 
of the country. Dolorous complaints 
come up to us from the South, that Vir- 
ginia will not head the march of seces- 
sion, and lead the other Southern States 
out of the Union. This, if it should 
happen, would be something of a mar- 
vel, certainly, considering how much 
pains Virginia took to lead these same 
States into the Union, and considering, 
too, that she has partaken as largely of 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



G47 



its benefits and its government as any- 
other State. 

And ye men of the other Southern 
States, members of the Old Thirteen; 
yes, members of the Old Thirteen ; that 
always touches my regard and my sym- 
pathies ; Xorth Carolina, Georgia, South 
Carolina I "What page in your history, 
or in the history of any one of you, is 
brighter than those which have been 
recorded since the Union was formed? 
Or through what period has your pros- 
perity been greater, or j^our peace and 
happiness better secured? What names 
even has South Carolina, now so much 
dissatisfied, what names has she of 
which her intelligent sons are more 
proud than those which have been con- 
nected with the government of the Unit- 
ed States? In Revolutionary times, and 
in the earliest days of this Constitution, 
there was no State more honored, or 
more deserving of honor. Where is 
she now? And what a fall is there, 
my countrymen! But I leave her to 
her own reflections, commending to her, 
with all my heart, the due consideration 
of her own example in times now gone 

Fellow-citizens, there are some dis- 
eases of the mind as well as of the 
body, diseases of communities as well 
as diseases of individuals, that must be 
left to their o^vn cure ; at least it is wise 
to leave them so until the last critical 
moment shall arrive. 

I hope it is not irreverent, and cer- 
tainly it is not intended as reproach, 
when I say, that I know no stronger 
expression in our language than that 
which describes the restoration of the 
wayward son, — " he came to himself." 
lie had broken away from all the ties of 
love, family, and friendship. He had 
forsaken every thing which he had once 
regarded in his father's house, lie had 
forsworn his natural sympathies, affec- 
tions, and habits, and taken his journey 
into a far country. He had gone away 
front himself and out of himself. But 
misfortunes overtook him, and famine 
threatened him with starvation and 
death. No entreaties from home fol- 
lowed him to beckon him back; no ad- 



monition from others warned him of his 
fate. But the hour of reflection had 
come, and nature and conscience wrought 
within him, until at length " he came to 
himself." 

And now, ye men of the new States 
of the South ! You are not of the origi- 
nal thirteen. The battle had been fought 
and won, the Revolution achieved, and 
the Constitution established, before your 
States had any existence as States. You 
came to a prepared banquet, and had 
seats assigned you at table just as honor- 
able as those which were filled by older 
guests. Y'ou have been and are singu- 
larly prosperous; and if any one should 
deny this, you would at once contradict 
his assertion. Y'ou liave bought vast 
quantities of choice and excellent land 
at the lowest price; and if the public 
domain has not been lavished upon you, 
you yourself will admit that it has been 
appropriated to your own uses by a very 
liberal hand. And yet in some of these 
States, not in all, persons are found in 
favor of a dissolution of the Union, or 
of secession from it. Such opinions are 
expressed even where the general pros- 
perity of the community has been the 
most rapidly advanced. In the flourish- 
ing and interesting State of Mississippi, 
for example, there is a large party wliicli 
insists that her grievances are intoler- 
able, that the whole body politic is in a 
state of suffering; and all along, and 
through her whole extent on the Missis- 
sippi, a loud ciy rings that her only 
remedy is " Secession," " Secession." 
Now, Gentlemen, what infliction does 
the State of Mississippi suffer under? 
What oppression prostrates her strength 
or destroys her happiness? Before we 
can judge of the proper remedy, we 
must know something of the disease; 
and, for my part, I confess that the real 
evil existing in the case appears to me 
to be a certain inquietuile or uneasiness 
growing out of a high degree of pros- 
perity and consciousness of wcaltii and 
power, which sometimes lead men to be 
ready for changes, and to push on un- 
rea.sonably to still higher elevation. If 
this be tlie trutli of the nuitter, her yo- 
litical doctors are about right. If the 



648 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



complaint spring from over-wrought 
prosperity, for that disease I have no 
doubt that secession would prove a 
sovereign remedy. 

But I return to the leading topic on 
which I was engaged. In the dejiart- 
ment of invention there have been 
wonderful applications of science to 
arts within the last sixty years. The 
spacious hall of the Patent Office is at 
once tlie repository and proof of Ameri- 
can inventive art and genius. Their 
results are seen in the numerous im- 
provements by which human labor is 
abridged. 

Without going into details, it may be 
sufficient to say, that many of the ap- 
plications of steam to locomotion and 
manufactures, of electricity and magnet- 
ism to the production of mechanical mo- 
tion, the electrical telegraph', the regis- 
tration of astronomical phenomena, the 
art of multiplying engravings, the in- 
troduction and improvement among us 
of all the important inventions of the 
Old World, are striking indications of 
the progress of this country in the use- 
ful arts. The net-work of railroads and 
telegraphic lines by which this vast 
country is reticulated have not only 
developed its resources, but united em- 
phatically, in metallic bands, all parts 
of the Union. The hydraulic works of 
New York, Philadelphia, and Boston 
surpass in extent and importance those 
of ancient Rome. 

But we have not confined our atten- 
tion to the immediate application of 
science to the useful arts. We have 
entered the field of original research, 
and have enlarged the bounds of scien- 
tific knowledge. 

Sixty years ago, besides the brilliant 
discoveries of Franklin in electricity, 
scarcely any tiling had been done among 
us in the way of original discovery. Our 
men of science were content with re- 
peating the experiments and diffusing 
a knowledge of the discoveries of the 
learned of the Old World, without at- 
tempting to add a single new fact or 
principle to the existing stock. Within 
the last twenty-five or thirty years a re- 



markable improvement has taken place 
in this respect. Our natural history has 
been explored in all its branches; our 
geology has been investigated with re- 
sults of the highest interest to practical 
and theoretical science. Discoveries have 
been made in pure chemistiy and elec- 
tricity, which have received the approba- 
tion of the world. The advance which 
has been made in meteorology in this 
country, within the last twenty years, is 
equal to that made during the same 
period in all the world besides. 

In 1793 there was not in the United 
States an instrument witli which a good 
observation of the heavenly bodies could 
be made. There are now instruments 
at Washington, Cambridge, and Cin- 
cinnati equal to those at the best Euro- 
pean observatories, and the original dis- 
coveries in astronomy within the last 
five years, in this country, are among 
the most brilliant of the age. I can 
hardly refrain from saying, in this con- 
nection, that the " Celestial Mechanics " 
of La Place has been translated and com- 
mented upon by Bowditch. 

Our knowledge of the geography and 
topography of the American continent 
has been rapidly extended by the labor 
and science of the officers of the United 
States army, and discoveries of much 
interest in distant seas have resulted 
from the enterprise of the navy. 

In 1807, a survey of the coast of the 
United States was connnenced, which at 
that time it was supposed no American 
was competent to direct. The work 
has, however, grown within the last few 
years, under a native superintendent, 
in importance and extent, beyond any 
enterprise of the kind ever before at- 
tempted. 

These facts conclusively prove that a 
great advance has been made among us, 
not only in the application of science to 
the wants of ordinary life, but in sci- 
ence itself, in its highest branches, in 
its adaptation to satisfy the cravings of 
the immoi'tal mind. 

In respect to literature, with the ex- 
ception of some books of elementary edu- 
cation, and some theological treatises, of 
which scarcely any but those of Jona- 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



649 



than Edwards have any permanent value, 
and some works on local history and pol- 
itics, like Hutchinson's Massachusetts, 
Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, the Feder- 
alist, Belknap's New Hampshire, and 
Morse's Geography, and a few others, 
America had not produced a single work 
of any repute in literature. We were 
almost wliolly dependent on imported 
books. Even our Bibles and Testa- 
ments were, for the most part, printed 
abroad. The book trade is now one of 
the greatest branches of business, and 
many works of standard value, and of 
high reputation in Europe as well as at 
home, have been produced by American 
authors in every department of literary 
composition. 

While the country has been expanding 
in dimensions, in numbers, and in wealth, 
the government has applied a wise fore- 
cast in the adoption of measures neces- 
sary, when the world shall no longer be 
at peace, to maintain the national honor, 
whether by appropriate displays of vigor 
abroad, or by well-adapted means of 
defence at home. A navy, which has 
so often illustrated our history by heroic 
achievements, tliough in peaceful times 
restrained in its operations to narrow 
limits, possesses, in its admirable ele- 
ments, the means of great and sudden 
expansion, and is justly looked upon by 
the nation as the right arm of its power. 
An army, still smaller, but not less per- 
fect in its detail, has on many a field 
exhibited the military aptitudes and 
prowess of the race, and demonstrated 
the wisdom which has presided over its 
organization and government. 

While the gradual and slow enlarge- 
ment of these respective military arms 
has been regulated by a jealous watch- 
fulness over the public treasure, there 
has, nevertliless, been freely given all 
that was needed to perfect their quality; 
and each affords the nucleus of any en- 
largement that the public exigencies 
may demand, from the millions of brave 
hearts and strong arms upon the land 
and water. 

The navy is the active and aggressive 
element of national defence; and, let 
loose from our own sea-coast, must dis- 



play its power in the seas and channels 
of the enemy. To do tliis, it need not 
be large; and it can never be large 
enough to defend by its presence at 
home all our ports and harbors. But, 
in the absence of the navy, what can 
the regular army or the volunteer militia 
do against the enemy's line-of-battlo 
ships and steamers, falling without notice 
upon our coast? What will guard our 
cities from tribute, our merciiant-vessels 
and our navy-yards from conflagration? 
Here, again, we see a wise forecast in 
the system of defensive measures which, 
especially since the close of the war 
with Great Britain, has been steadily 
followed by our government. 

While the perils from which our great 
establishments had just escaped were yet 
fresh in remembrance, a system of forti- 
fications was begun, which now, though 
not quite complete, fences in our im- 
portant points with impassable strength. 
More than four thousand cannon may at 
any moment, ^vithin strong and perma- 
nent works, arranged with all the ad- 
vantages and appliances that the art 
affords, be turned to the protection of 
the sea-coast, and be served by the mea 
whose hearths they shelter. Happy for 
us that it is so, since these are means of 
security that time alone can supply; 
and since the imjjrovements of mari- 
time warfare, by making distant expe- 
ditions easy and speedy, have made 
them more probable, and at the same 
time more difficult to anticipate and 
provide against. The cost of fortifying 
all the important points of our coast, as 
well upon the whole Atlantic as the 
Gulf of Mexico, will not exceed the 
amount expended on the fortifications 
of Paris. 

In this connection one most important 
facility in the defence of the countay is 
not to be overlooked; it is the extreme 
rapidity with which the soldiers of the 
army, and any number of the militia 
corps, may be brought to any jioint 
where a hostile attack shall at any time 
be made or threatened. 

And this extension of territory em- 
braced within the L'niteil States, in- 
crease of its population, commerce, and 



650 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



manufactures, development of its re- 
sources by canals and railroads, and ra- 
pidity of intercommunication by means 
of steam and electricity, have all been 
accomplished vi'ithout overthrow of, or 
danger to, the public liberties, by any 
assumption of military power; and, in- 
deed, without any permanent increase 
of the army, except for the purpose of 
frontier defence, and of affording a 
slight guard to the public property ; or 
of the navy, any further than to assure 
the navigator that, in whatsoever sea he 
shall sail his ship, he is protected by the 
stars and stripes of his country. This, 
too, has been done without the shedding 
of a drop of blood for treason or rebel- 
lion ; while systems of popular represen- 
tation have regularly been supported in 
the State governments and in the general 
government; while laws, national and 
State, of such a character have been 
passed, and have been so wisely admin- 
istered, that I may stand up here to- 
day, and declare, as I now do declare, 
in the face of all the intelligent of the 
age, that, for the period which has 
elapsed from the day that Washing- 
ton laid the foundation of this Capitol 
to the present time, there has been no 
country upon earth in which life, liberty, 
and property have been more amply and 
steadily secured, or more freely enjoyed, 
than in these United States of America. 
"Who is there that will deny this ? Who is 
there prepared with a greater or a better 
example? Who is there that can stand 
upon the foundation of facts, acknowl- 
edged or proved, and assert that these 
our republican institutions have not an- 
swered the true ends of government be- 
yond all precedent in human history? 

There is yet another view. There are 
still higher considerations. Man is an 
intellectual being, destined to immor- 
tality. There is a spirit in him, and 
the breath of the Almighty hath given 
him understanding. Then only is he 
tending toward his own destiny, while 
he seeks for knowledge and virtue, for 
the will of his Maker, and for just con- 
ceptions of his own duty. Of all impor- 
tant questions, therefore, let this, the 
most important of all, be first asked 



and first answered : In what countiy of 
the habitable globe, of great extent 
and large population, are the means of 
knowledge the most generally diffused 
and enjoyed among the people? This 
question admits of one, and only one, 
answer. It is here ; it is here in these 
United States ; it is among the descend- 
ants of those who settled at Jamestown ; 
of those who were pilgrims on the shore 
of Plymouth; and of those other races 
of men, who, in subsequent times, have 
become joined in this great American 
family. Let one fact, incapable of doubt 
or dispute, satisfy every mind on this 
point. The population of the United 
States is twenty-three millions. Now, 
take the map of the continent of Europe 
and spread it out before you. Take 
your scale and your dividers, and lay off 
in one area, in any shape you please, a 
triangle, square, circle, parallelogram, 
or trapezoid, and of an extent that shall 
contain one hundred and fifty millions 
of people, and there will be found within 
the United States more persons who do 
habitually read and write than can be 
embraced within the lines of your demar- 
cation. 

But there is something even more than 
this. Man is not only an intellectual, 
but he is also a religious being, and his 
religious feelings and habits require cul- 
tivation. Let the religious element in 
man's nature be neglected, let him be 
influenced by no higher motives than 
low self-interest, and subjected to no 
stronger restraint than the limits of civil 
authority, and he becomes the creature 
of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. 

The spectacle of a nation powerful 
and enlightened, but without Christian 
faith, has been presented, almost within 
our own day, as a warning beacon for 
the nations. 

On the other hand, tlie cultivation of 
the religious sentiment represses licen- 
tiousness, incites to general benevolence 
and the practical acknowledgment of the 
brotherhood of man, inspires respect for 
law and order, and gives strength to the 
whole social fabric, at the same time 
that it conducts the human soul upward 
to the Author of its being. 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



651 



Now, T think it may be stated with 
truth, that iu no countiy, in proportion 
to its population, are there so many be- 
nevolent establishments connected with 
religious instruction, Bible, iVIissionary, 
and Tract Societies, supported by public 
and private contributions, as in our own. 
There are also institutions for the educa- 
tion of the blind, of idiots, of the deaf 
and dumb; for the reception of orphan 
and destitute cliildren, and tlie insane; 
for moral reform, designed for children 
and females respectively; and institu- 
tions for the reformation of criminals; 
not to speak of those numerous estab- 
lishments, in almost every county and 
town in the United States, for the recep- 
tion of the aged, infirm, and destitute 
poor, many of whom have lied to our 
shores to escape the poverty and wretch- 
edness of their condition at home. 

In the United States there is no church 
establishment or ecclesiastical authority 
founded by government. Public worship 
is maintained either by voluntary asso- 
ciations and contributions, or by trusts 
and donations of a charitable origin. 

Xow, I think it safe to say, that a 
greater portion of the people of the 
United States attend public worship, 
decently clad, well behaved, and well 
seated, than of any other country of the 
civilized world. Edifices of religion are 
seen everywhere. Their aggregate cost 
would amount to an immense sum of 
money. They are, in general, kept iu 
good repair, and consecrated to the pur- 
poses of public worship. In these edi- 
fices the people regularly assemble on 
the Sabbath day, which, by all classes, 
is sacredly set ajiart for rest from secular 
employment and for religious medita- 
tion and worship, to listen to the read- 
ing of the Holy Scriptures, and dis- 
courses from pious ministers of the sev- 
eral denominations. 

This attention to the wants of the in- 
tellect and of the soul, as manifested by 
; the voluntary support of schools and 
' colleges, of churches and.benevolent in- 
'; stitutions, is one of the most remarkable 
* characteristics of the American people, 
■ not less strikingly exliibited in the new 
V than in the older settlements of the 



L 



countiy. On the spot where the first 
trees of the forest were felled, near tlie 
log cabins of the pioneers, are to be seen 
rising together the church and the school- 
house. So has it been from the begin- 
ning, and God grant that it may thus 
continue ! 

"On other shores, above their inoulderirif; towns, 
In sullen p(»nip, tlie tall eathednil frowns; 
Sinijjle and frail, our lowly teni|)les throw 
Their slender shadows on the paths helow; 
Searee steal the winds, that sweep the wood- 
land tracks. 
The larch's perfume from the settler's axe, 
Ere, like a vision of the morning air, 
His slight-framed steeple marks the house of 

prayer. 
Yet Faith's pure hymn, beneath its shelter 

rude. 
Breathes out as sweetly to th(^ tangled wood, 
As where the rays through blazing oriels pour 
On marble shaft and tessellated tioor." 

Who does not admit that this unpar- 
alleled growth in prosperity and renown 
is the result, under Providence, of the 
union of these States under a general 
Constitution, which guarantees to eacii 
State a republican form of government, 
and to every man the enjoyment of life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, 
free from civil tyranny or ecclesiastical 
domination V 

And, to bring home this idea to tlie 
present occasion, who does not feel that, 
when President Washington laid his 
hand on the foundation of the first Cap- 
itol, he performed a great work of per- 
petuation of the Union and the Consti- 
tution? Who does not feel that this 
seat of the general government, health- 
ful in its situation, central iu its posi- 
tion, near the mountains whence gush 
springs of wonderful virtue, teeiuing 
with Nature's richest products, and yet 
not far from the bays and the great 
estuaries of the sea, easily accessible 
and generally agreeable in climate and 
association, does give strength to the 
union of these States? that this city, 
bearing an immortal luiine, with its 
broad streets and avenues, its public 
squares ami magnificent edifices of the 
general government, erected for tlie pur- 
pose of carrying on within them the im- 
portant business of the several depart- 



652 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



ments, for the reception of wonderful 
and cui'ious inventions, for the preser- 
vation of the records of American learn- 
ing and genius, of extensive collections 
of the products of nature and art, brought 
hither for study and comparison from 
all parts of the world, — adorned with 
numerous churches, and sprinkled over, 
I am happy to say, with many public 
schools, where all the children of the 
city, without distinction, have the means 
of obtaining a good education, and with 
academies and colleges, professional 
schools and public libraries, — should 
continue to receive, as it has heretofore 
received, the fostering care of Congress, 
and should be regarded as the permanent 
seat of the national gevernment? Here, 
too, a citizen of the great republic of 
letters, 1 a republic which knows not the 
metes and bounds of political geogra- 
phy, has prophetically indicated his 
conviction that America is to exercise 
a wide and powerful influence in the 
intellectual world, by founding in this 
city, as a commanding position in the 
field of science and literature, and 
placing under the guardiansliip of the 
government, an institution "for the 
increase and diffusion of knowledge 
among men." 

With each succeeding year new inter- 
est is added to the spot; it becomes 
connected with all the historical associa- 
tions of our country, with her states- 
men and her orators, and, alas! its cem- 
etery is annually enriched by the ashes 
of her chosen sons. 

Before us is the broad and beautiful 
river, separating two of the original 
thirteen States, which a late President, 
a man of determined purpose and inflex- 
ible will, but patriotic heart, desired to 
span with arches of ever-enduring gran- 
ite, symbolical of the firmly cemented 
union of the North and the South. That 
President was General Jackson. 

On its banks repose the ashes of the 
Father of his Country, and at our side, 
by a singular felicity of position, over- 
looking the city which he designed, and 

1 Hugh Smithson, whose munificent bequest 
has been applied to the foundation of " The 
Smithsonian Institution." 



which bears his name, rises to his mem- 
ory the marble column, sublime in its 
simple grandeur, and fitly intended to 
reach a loftier height than any similar 
structure on the surface of the whole 
earth. 

Let the votive offerings of his grate- 
ful countrymen be freely contributed to 
carry this monument higher and still 
higher. May I say, as on another occa- 
sion, " Let it rise; let it rise till it meet 
the sun in his coming; let the earliest 
light of the morning gild it, and parting 
day linger and play on its summit! " 

Fellow-citizens, what contemplations 
are awakened in our minds as we assem- 
ble here to re-enact a' scene like that 
performed by Washington! ISIethinks 
I see his venerable form -now before me, 
as presented in the glorious statue by 
Houdon, now" in the Capitol of Virginia. 
He is dignified and grave; but concern 
and anxiety seem to soften the linea- 
ments of his countenance. The govern- 
ment over which he presides is yet in 
the crisis of experiment. 'Not free from 
troubles at home, he sees the world in 
commotion and in arms all around him. 
He sees that imposing foreign powers 
are half disposed to try the strength of 
the recently established American gov- 
ernment. We perceive that mighty 
thoughts, mingled with fears as well as 
with hopes, are struggling within him. 
He heads a short procession over these 
then naked fields; he crosses yonder 
stream on a fallen tree; he ascends to 
the top of this eminence, whose original 
oaks of the forest stand as thick around 
him as if the spot had been devoted to 
Druidical worship, and here he performs 
the appointed duty of the day. 

And now, fellow-citizens, if this vis- 
ion were a reality; if Washington actu- 
ally were now amongst us, and if he 
could draw around him the shades of 
the great public men of his own day, 
patriots and warriors, orators and states- 
men, and were to address us in their 
presence, would he not say to us: "Ye 
men of this generation, I rejoice and 
thank God for being able to see that our 
labors and toils and sacrifices were not 
in vain. You are prosperous, you are 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



G53 



happy, you are grateful; the fire of lib- 
erty burns brightly and steadily in your 
hearts, while duty and the law re- 
strain it from bursting forth in wild 
and destructivo conflagration. Cherish 
liberty, as you love it; cherish its secu- 
rities, as yon wish to preserve it. !Main- 
tain the Constitution which wo labored 
so painfully to establish, and which has 
been to you such a source of inestima- 
ble blessings. Preserve the union of 
the States, cemented as it was by our 
prayers, our tears, and our blood. Be 
true to God, to your country, and to 
your duty. So shall the whole Eastern 
world follow the morning sun to con- 
template you as a nation ; so shall all 
generations honor you, as they honor 
us; and so shall that Almighty Power 
which so gi'aciously protected us, and 
which now protects vou, shower its 
everlasting blessings upon you and your 
posterity." 

Great Father of your Country! we 
heed your words; we feel their force as 
if you now uttered them with lips of 
flesh and blood. Your example teaches 
us, your affectionate addresses teach us, 
your public life teaches us, your sense 
of the value of the blessings of the 
Union. Those blessings our fathers 
have tasted, and we have tasted, and 
still taste. Nor do we intend that those 
■who come after us shall be denied the 
same high fruition. Our honor as well 
as our happiness is concerned. We can- 
not, we dare not, we will not, betray 
our sacred trust. We will not filch 
from posterity the treasure placed in 
our hands to be transmitted to other 
generations. The bow that gilds the 
clouds in the heavens, the pillars that 
uphold the firmament, may disappear 
and fall away in the hour appointed by 
the will of God; but until tliat day 
comes, or so long as our lives may last, 
no ruthless hand shall undermine tliat 
bright arch of Union and Liberty which 
spans the continent from AVashington to 
California. 

Fellow-citizens, we nuist sometimes 
be tolerant to folly, and patient at the 
sight of the extreme waywardness of 
men; but I confess that, when I reflect 



on the renown of our past history, on 
our present prosperity and greatness, 
and on what the future hath yet to un- 
fold, and when I see that there are men 
wlio can find in all tliis nothing good, 
nothing valuable, nothing truly glorious, 
I feel that all their reason has fled away 
from them, and left the entire control 
over their judgment and their actions 
to insanity and fanaticism; and more 
than all, fellow-citizens, if the purposes 
of fanatics and disunionists should be 
accomplislied, the patriotic and intelli- 
gent of our generation would seek to 
hide themselves from the scorn of the 
world, and go about to find dishonorable 
graves. 

Fellow-citizens, take courage; be of 
ffood cheer. We shall come to no such 
ignoble end. We shall live, and not 
die. During the period allotted to our 
several lives, we shall continue to re- 
joice in the return of this anniversary. 
The ill-omened sounds of fanaticism 
will be hushed; the ghastly spectres of 
Secession and Disunion will disappear; 
and the enemies of united constitutional 
liberty, if their hatred cannot be ap- 
peased, may prepare to have their eye- 
balls seared as they behold the steady 
flight of the American eagle, on his 
burnished wings, for years and years to 
come. 

President Fillmore, it is your singu- 
larly good fortune to perform an act 
such as that which the earliest of your 
predecessors performed fifty-eight years 
ago. You stand where he stood; you 
lay your hand on the corner-stone of a 
building designed greatly to extend that 
whose corner-stone he laid. Changed, 
changed is every thing around. The 
same sun, indeed, shone upon his liead 
which now sliines upon yours. The 
same broad river rolled at his feet, and 
bathes his last resting-place, that now 
rolls at yours. But the site of this city 
was then mainly an op<'n field. Streets 
and avenues have since l>oen laid out and 
completed, squares and public grounds 
enclosed and ornamented, until the city 
which bears his name, although com- 
paratively inconsiderable in numbers 
and wealth, has become quite fit to be 



654 



THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 



the seat of government of a great and 
united people. 

Sir, may the consequences of the duty 
which you perform so auspiciously to- 
day, equal those which flowed from his 
act. Nor this only ; may the principles 
of your administration, and the wisdom 
of your political conduct, be such, as 
that the world of the present day, and 
all histoi-y hereafter, may be at no loss 
to perceive what example you have made 
your study. 

Fellow-citizens, I now bring this ad- 
dress to a close, by expressing to you, 
in the words of the great Roman orator, 
the deepest wish of my heart, and which 
I know dwells deeply in the hearts of 
all who hear me: " Duo modo hsec opto ; 



unum, UT MORIENS POPULUM ROMANUM 

LIBEKUM relinquam; hoc mild niajus 
a diis immortalibus dari nihil potest: 
alterum, ut ita cuique eveniat, ut de 
republica quisque mereatur." 

And now, fellow-citizens, with hearts 
void of hatred, envy, and malice towards 
our own countrymen, or any of them, or 
towards the subjects or citizens of other 
governments, or towards any member 
of the great family of man ; but exult- 
ing, nevertheless, in our own peace, se- 
curity, and happiness, in the grateful 
remembrance of the past, and the glo- 
rious hopes of the future, let us return 
to our homes, and with all humility and 
devotion offer our thanks to the Father 
of all our mercies, political, social, and 
religious. 



ArrENDix. 



IMPRESSMENT. 



Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. 

Department of State. Washington, 
August 8, 1842. 

Mt Lord, — We have had several con- 
versations on the subject of impressment, 
but I do not understand that your Lordship 
has instructions from your government to 
negotiate upon it, nor does the government 
of the United States see any utility in 
opening such negotiation, vmless the Brit- 
ish government is prepared to renounce the 
practice in all future wars. 

No cause has produced to so great an 
extent, and for so long a period, disturbing 
and irritating influences on the political re- 
lations of the United States and England, 
as the impressment of seamen by British 
cruisers from American merchant-vessels. 

From the commencement of tlie Frencli 
Eevolution to the breaking out of the war 
between the two countries in 1812, hardly 
a year elapsed without loud complaint and 
earnest remonstrance. A deep feeling of 
opposition to the right claimed, and to the 
practice exercised under it, and not unfre- 
quently exercised without the least regard 
to what justice and humanity would have 
dictated, even if the riglit itself had been 
a<lniitted, took possession of the public 
mind of America, and this feeling, it is 
well known, co-operated most powerfully 
with other causes to produce the state of 
hostilities which ensued. 

At different periods, both before and 
since the war, negotiations have taken 
place between the two governments, witli 
the hope of finding some means of quiet- 
ing these complaints. At some times, tlie 
effectual abolition of the practice has been 
requested and treated of; at other times, its 
temporary suspension ; and at other times, 
again, the limitation of its exercise, and 
some security against its enormous abuses. 

A common destiny has attended these 



efforts ; tlu/ have all failed. The ques- 
tion stands at this mouK-nt wiiere it stood 
fifty years ago. Tiie nearest approach to 
a settlement was a convention projx)sed in 
1803, anil which had come to the point of 
signature, when it was Ijroken off in con- 
sequence of the British government insist- 
ing that the narrow sens should be exj)ressly 
excepted out of the sphere over which the 
contemplated stipulation against impress- 
ment should extend. The American Min- 
ister, Mr. King, regarded this exception as 
quite inadmissible, and chose rather to 
abandon the negotiation than to acquiesce 
in the doctrine which it proposed to es- 
tablish. 

England asserts the right of impressing 
British subjects, in time of war, out of 
neutral merchant-vessels, and of deciding 
by her visiting officers who, among the 
crews of such merchant-vessels, are British 
subjects. She asserts this as a legal exer- 
cise of the prerogative of the crown ; which 
prerogative is alleged to be founded on the 
English law of tlie perpetual and indis- 
soluble allegiance of the subject, and his 
obligation imder all circumstances, and for 
his whole life, to render military service to 
the crown whenever required. 

This statement, made in the words of 
eminent British jurists, sliows at once that 
the English claim is far broailer than tlie 
basis or i>latf()rm on which it is raised. 
The law relied on is Knglisii law ; the obli- 
gations insisted on are obligations existing 
between the crown of Englan<l and its sub- 
jects. This law and the!<e oliligations, it is 
admitted, may be such as England may 
choose they shall be. But then they must 
be confined to the parties. Impressment 
of seamen out of and beyond l''.iiglish ter- 
ritory, and from on board the ships of 
other nations, is an interference with the 
rights of other nations; is furtlier, there- 
fore, than English prerogative can legally 



656 



APPENDIX. 



extend; and is nothing but an attempt to 
enforce the peculiar law of England be- 
yond the dominions and jurisdiction of the 
crown. The claim asserts an extra-terri- 
torial authority for the law of British pre- 
rogative, and assumes to exercise this extra- 
territorial authority, to the manifest injury 
and annoyance of the citizens and subjects 
of other states, on board their own vessels, 
on the high seas. 

Every merchant-vessel on the seas is 
rightfully considered as part of the terri- 
tory of the country to which it belongs. 
The entry, therefore, into such vessel, be- 
ing neutral, by a belligerent, is an act of 
force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a tres- 
pass, which can be justified only when done 
for some purpose allowed to form a suffi- 
cient justification by the law of nations. 
But a British cruiser enters an American 
merchant-vessel in order to take therefrom 
supposed British subjects ; offering no jus- 
tification, therefore, under the law of na- 
tions, but claiming the right under the law 
of England respecting the king's preroga- 
tive. This cannot be defended. English 
soil, English territory, English jurisdiction, 
is the appropriate sphere for the operation 
of English law. The ocean is the sphere 
of the law of nations ; and any merchant- 
vessel on the seas is by that law under the 
protection of the laws of her own nation, 
and may claim immunity, unless in cases 
in which that law allows her to be entered 
or visited. 

If this notion of perpetual allegiance, 
and the consequent power of the preroga- 
tive, was the law of the world ; if it 
formed part of the conventional code of 
nations, and was usually practised, like the 
right of visiting neutral ships, for the pur- 
pose of discovering and seizing enemy's 
property, then impressment might be de- 
fended as a common right, and there would 
be no remedy for the evil till the national 
code should be altered. But this is by no 
means the case. There is no such princi- 
ple incorporated into the code of nations. 
The doctrine stands only as Englisli law, 
not as a national law ; and English law can- 
not be of force beyond English dominion. 
AViiatever duties or relations tliat law 
creates between the sovereign and his sub- 
jects can be enforced and maintained only 
within the realm, or proper possessions or 
territory of the sovereign. There may be 
quite as just a prerogative right to the 
property of subjects as to their personal 
services, in an exigency of the state ; but 



no government thinks of controlling by its 
own laws property of its subjects situated 
abroad ; much less does any government 
think of entering tlie territory of another 
power for the purpose of seizing such prop- 
erty and applying it to its own uses. As 
laws, the prerogatives of the crown of 
England have no obligation on persons or 
propertj' domiciled or situated abroad. 

" When, therefore," says an authority 
not unknown or unregarded on either side 
of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right of 
a state to bind its own native subjects 
everywhere, we speak only of its own 
claim and exercise of sovereignty over 
them when they return within its own ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction, and not of its riglit to 
compel or require obedience to such laws, 
on the part of other nations, within their 
own territorial sovereignty. On the con- 
trary, every nation has an exclusive right 
to regulate persons and things within its 
own territory, according to its sovereign 
will and public polity." 

The good sense of these principles, their 
remarkable pertinency to the subject now 
under consideration, and the extraordinary 
consequences resulting from the British doc- 
trine, are signally manifested by that which 
we see taking place every day. England 
acknowledges herself overburdened with 
population of the poorer classes. Every 
instance of the emigration of persons of 
those classes is regarded by her as a bene- 
fit. England, therefore, encourages emi- 
gration ; means are notoriously supplied 
to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, 
from public funds; and the New World, 
and most especially these United States, 
receive the many thousands of her subjects 
thus ejected from the bosom of their native 
land by the necessities of their condition. 
They come away from poverty and distress 
in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, 
comfort, and new homes in a country of 
free institutions, possessed by a kindred 
race, speaking their own language, and 
having laws and usages in many respects 
like those to whicli they have been accus- 
tomed ; and a country which, upon the 
whole, is found to possess more attractions 
for persons of their character and condi- 
tion than any other on the face of the 
globe. It is stated that, in the quarter of 
the year ending with June last, more than 
twenty-six thousand emigrants left the sin- 
gle port of Liverpool for the United States, 
being four or five times as many as left the 
same port within the same period for the 



IMPRESSMENT. 



057 



Britisli colonics and all other parts of the 
world. Of these crowds of eiiiiy;rants, 
many arrive in onr cities in eircnnistances 
of great destitution, and the charities of 
the country, both public and private, are 
severely taxed to relievo their ininiediate 
wants. In time they mingle with the new 
community in which they find themselves, 
and seek means of living. Some find em- 
ployment in the cities, others go to the 
frontiers, to cultivate lands reclaimed from 
the forest ; and a greater or less number of 
the residue, becoming in time naturalized 
citizens, enter into the merchant service 
under the flag of their adopted country. 

Now, my Lord, if war should break out 
between England and a European power, 
can any thing be more unjust, any thing 
more irreconcilable to the general senti- 
ments of mankind, than that England 
should seek out these persons, thus en- 
couraged by her and compelled by their 
own condition to leave their native homes, 
tear them away from their new employ- 
ments, their new political relations, and 
their domestic connections, and force them 
to undergo the dangers and hardships of 
military service for a country which has 
thus ceased to be their own coiintr^^ ? Cer- 
tainly, certainly, my Lord, there can be but 
one answer to this question. Is it not far 
more reasonable that England should either 
prevent such emigration of her subjects, or 
tiiat, if she encourage and promote it, she 
should leave them, not to the embroilment 
of a double and contradictory allegiance, 
but to their own voluntary choice, to form 
such relations, political or social, as tliey 
see fit, in the country where they are to 
find their bread, and to the laws and insti- 
tutions of which they are to look for de- 
fence and protection "? 

A question of such serious importance 
ought now to be put at rest. If the United 
States give shelter and protection to those 
whom the policy of England annually casts 
upon their shores, — if, by the benign in- 
fluences of their government and institu- 
tions, and by the happy condition of the 
country, those emigrants become raised 
from poverty to comfort, finding it easy 
even to become landiiolders, and being 
allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all 
civil rights, — if all this may be done, (and 
all this is done, under the countenance and 
encouragement of England herself,) is it 
not higli time that, yielding that which had 
its origin in feudal ideas as ini'onsistent 
with the present state of society, and espe- 



cially with the intercourse and relations 
subsisting between tile Old World un<l the 
New, England should at length formally 
disclaim all right to the services of such 
persons, ami renounce all control over their 
conduct 1 

Hut impressment is subject to objections 
of a much wider range. If it could be 
justified in its application to those who are 
declared to be its only objects, it still re- 
mains true that, in its exercise, it touciies 
the political rights of (.tlier governments, 
and endangers the security of their own 
native subjects and citizens. The sover- 
eignty of the state is cuncerned in niainlain- 
ing its exclusive jurisdiction and possession 
over its merchant-ships on the seas, except 
so far as the law of nations justifies in- 
trusion ujjon that jiossession for s])ecial pur- 
poses ; and all experience has shown, that 
no member of a crew, wherever born, is 
safe against impressment when a ship is 
visited. 

The evils and injuries resulting from the 
actual practice can hardly be overstated, 
and have ever proved themselves to be such 
as should lead to its relinquishment, even if 
it were founded in any defensible principle. 
The difficulty of discriminating between 
English subjects and American citizens has 
always been found to be great, even when 
an honest purpose of discrimination has 
existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of- 
war, having necessity for men, is apt to be 
a summary judge, and his decisions will be 
quite as significant of his own wants and 
his own power as of the truth and justice 
of the case. An extract from a letter of 
Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to the 
American Secretary of State, shows some- 
thing of the enormous extent of these wrong- 
ful seizures. 

" Instead of a few, and these in many in- 
stances equivocal cases, I have," says he, 
" since the month of July past, made appli- 
cation for the discharge from British men- 
of-war of two hnmlred and seventy-one 
seamen, who, stating themselves to be 
Americans, have claimed my interference. 
Of this number, eighty si.x have been or- 
dered by the Admiralty to be discharged, 
thirty-seven more liave been detained as 
British subjects or as American volunteers, 
or for want of proof iluit llu'v are Amer- 
icans, and to my a])plications for the dis- 
charge of the remaining one hundred and 
forty-eight I liave received no answer; the 
ships on board of which these seamen were 
detained having, in many instances, sailed 



42 



658 



APPENDIX. 



before an examination was marie in conse- 
quence of my application. 

" It is certain tliat some of those who 
have applied to me are not American cit- 
izens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, 
few, and the evidence, exclusive of certifi- 
cates, has been such as, in most cases, to 
satisfy me that the applicants were real 
Americans, who have been forced into the 
British service, and who, with singular con- 
stancy, have generally persevered in refus- 
ing pay or bounty, though in some instances 
they have been in service more than two 
years." 

But the injuries of impressment are by 
no means confined to its immediate sub- 
jects, or the individuals on whom it is prac- 
tised. Vessels suffer from the weakening 
of their crews, and voyages are often de- 
layed, and not unfrequently broken up, by 
subtraction from the number of necessary 
hands by impressment. And what is of 
still greater and more general moment, the 
fear of impressment has been found to cre- 
ate great difficulty in obtaining sailors for 
the American merchant service in times of 
European war. Seafaring men, otherwise 
inclined to enter into that service, are, as 
experience has shown, deterred by the fear 
of finding themselves erelong in compulsory 
military service in British ships of war. 
Many instances have occurred, fully estab- 
lished by proof, in which raw seamen, na- 
tives of the United States, fresh from the 
fields of agriculture, entering for the first 
time on shipboard, have been impressed be- 
fore they made the land, placed on the 
decks of British men-of-war, and compelled 
to serve for years before they could ob- 
tain their release, or revisit their coimtry 
and their homes. Such instances become 
known, and their eifect in discouraging 
young men from engaging in the merchant 
service of their country can neither be 
doubted nor wondered at. More than all, 
my Lord, the practice of impressment, when- 
ever it has existed, has produced, not con- 
ciliation and good feeling, but resentment, 
exasperation, and animosity between the two 
great commercial countries of the world. 

In the calm and quiet which have suc- 
ceeded the late war, a condition so favor- 
able for dispassionate consideration, Eng- 
land herself has evidently seen the harsh- 
ness of impressment, even wlien exercised 
on seamen in her own merchant service, 
and she has adopted measures calculated, 
if not to renounce the power or to abolish 
the practice, yet at least to supersede its 



necessity by other moans of manning the 
royal navy more compatible with justice 
and the rights of individuals, and far more 
conformable to the spirit and sentiments of 
the age. 

Under these circumstances, the govern- 
ment of the United States has used the oc- 
casion of your Lordship's pacific mission to 
review this whole subject, and to bring it 
to your notice and that of your govern- 
ment. It has reflected on the past, pon- 
dered the condition of the present, and 
endeavored to anticipate, so far as might 
be in its power, the probable future ; and I 
am now to communicate to your Lordship 
the result of these deliberations. 

The American government, then, is pre- 
pared to say that the practice of impressing 
seamen from American vessels cannot here- 
after be allowed to take place. That prac- 
tice is founded on principles which it does 
not recognize, and is invariably attended by 
consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of 
such formidable magnitude, as cannot be 
submitted to. 

In the early disputes between the two 
governments on this so long contested topic, 
the distinguished person to whose hands 
were first intrusted the seals of this depart- 
ment ^ declared, that " the simplest rule will 
be, that the vessel being American shall 
be evidence that the seamen on board are 
such." 

Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of 
many negotiations, and a careful reconsid- 
eration, now had, of tiie whole subject, at 
a moment when the passions are laid, and 
no present interest or emergency exists to 
bias the judgment, have fully convinced 
this government that this is not only the 
simplest and best, but the only rule, which 
can be adopted and observed, consistently 
with the rights and honor of the United 
States and the security of their citizens. 
That rule announces, therefore, what will 
hereafter be the principle maintained by 
their government. In every regularly doc- 
umented American merchant-vessel the crew 
who navigate it will find their protection 
in the flag wliich is over them. 

This announcement is not made, my 
Lord, to revive useless recollections of the 
past, nor to stir the embers from fires which 
have been, in a great degree, smothered by 
many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its 
purpose is to extinguish those fires effectu- 
ally, before new incidents arise to fan them 
into flame. The communication is in the 
1 Mr. Jefferson. 



IMPRESSMENT. 



659 



spirit of peace, and for the sake of peace, 
and springs from a deep and conscientious 
conviction that high interests of both na- 
tions require this so long contested and con- 
troverted subject now to be finally put to 
rest. I persuade myself that you will do 
justice to this frank and sincere avowal of 
motives, and tliat you will communicate 
your sentiments in this respect to your gov- 
errmient. 

This letter closes, my Lord, on my part, 
our official correspondence ; and I gladly 
use the occasion to offer you the assurance 
of my high and sincere regard. 

Daniel Webster. 
Lord Ashburton, &c., Sec, &c. 



Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, August 9, 1S42. 

Sir, — The note you did me the honor of 
addressing me the 8th instant, on the sub- 
ject of impressment, shall be transmitted 
without delay to my government, and will, 
you may be assured, receive from them the 
deliberate attention which its importance 
deserves. 

The object of my mission was mainly the 
settlement of existing subjects of differ- 
ence; and no differences have or could 
have arisen of late years witli respect to 
impressment, because the practice has, since 
the peace, wholly ceased, and cannot, con- 
sistenth' wiJi existing laws and regulations 
for manning her Majesty's navy, be, under 
the present circumstances, renewed. 

Desirous, however, of looking far for- 
ward into futurity to anticipate even possi- 
ble causes of disagreement, and sensible of 
the anxiety of the American people on this 
grave subject of past irritation, I should be 
sorry in any waj' to discourage the attempt 
at some settlement of it ; and, althougii 
without authority to enter upon it here dur- 
ing the limited continuance of my mission, 
I entertain a confident hope tiiat this task 
may be accomplished, when undertaken 
with the spirit of candor and conciliation 
which has marked all our late negotiations. 

It not being our intention to endeavor 
now to come to any agreement on this sub- 
ject, I may be permitted to abstain from 
noticing at length your very ingenious ar- 
guments relating to it, and from discussing 
the graver matters of constitutional and 
internaticinal law growing out of them. 
These sutti<-iently show that the question is 
one requiring calm consideration ; though I 



must, at the same time, admit that they 
prove a strong necessity of some settlement 
for the preservation of that good uiuJtr- 
standing which, I trust, we may flatter our- 
selves that our joint lulK)rs have now suc- 
ceeded in establishing. 

I am well aware that the laws of our two 
countries maintain opposite i)rinciples re- 
specting allegiance to the sovereign. Amer- 
ica, receiving every year by thousands the 
emigrants of Europe, maintains the doc- 
trine suita))le to her condition, of the right 
of transferring allegiance at will. The 
laws of Great Britain have maintained from 
all time the opi)()site doctrine. The duties 
of allegiance are held to be imiefeasible ; 
and it is believed that this doctrine, under 
various modifications, prevnils in most, if 
not in all, the civilized st;ites of Europe. 

Emigration, the modern mode by which 
the population of the world juaceably finds 
its level, is for the benefit of all, and emi- 
nently for the benefit of humanity. The 
fertile deserts of America are gradually ad- 
vancing to the highest state of cultivation 
and production, while the emigrant acquires 
comfort which his own confined home could 
not afford him. 

If there were any thing in our laws or 
our practice on eiilier side teixling to im- 
pede this march of providential humanity, 
we could not be too eager to ])r()vide a 
remedy ; but as this does not ajtpear to be 
the case, we may safely leave this part of 
the subject without indulging in abstract 
speculations having no material practical 
ajjplication to matters in discussicm be- 
tween us. 

But it must be adnn'tted that a serious 
practical question does arise, or. rather, has 
existed, from practices formerly attending 
the mode of manning the British navy in 
times of war. The principle is, that all 
subjects of the crown are, in case of neces- 
sity, bound to serve their country, and the 
seafaring man is naturally taken for the 
naval si-rvici-. This is not, as is sometimes 
supposed, any arbitrary principle of mon- 
archical government, but one foun<led on 
the natural duty of every man to defend 
the lift' of his country ; anci all the analogy 
of your laws would lead to the conelusion, 
that the same principle would hold good in 
the United States if their geograpliieal posi- 
tion iliil not make it.- applicaiion unneces- 
sary. 

The very antmialous conilition of the 
two countries with relation to eaeh other 
here creates a serious <iilliculiy. Our peo- 



660 



APPENDIX. 



pie are not distinguishable ; anrl, owing to 
the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels 
are very generally manned from a common 
stock. It is difficult, under these circum- 
stances, to execute laws which at times 
have been thought to be essential for the 
existence of the country, without risk of in- 
jury toothers. The extent and importance 
of those injuries, however, are so formida- 
ble, that it is admitted that some remedy 
should, if possible, be applied ; at all events, 
it must be fairly and honestly attempted. 
It is true, that during the continuance of 
peace no practical grievance can arise ; but 
it is also true, that it is for that reason the 
proper season for the calm and deliberate 
consideration of an important subject. I 



have much reason to hope that a satisfac- 
tory arrangement respecting it may be 
made, so as to set at rest all apprehension 
and anxiety ; and I will only further repeat 
the assurance of the sincere disposition of 
my government favorably to consider all 
matters having for their object the promot- 
ing and maintaining undisturbed kind and 
friendly feelings with the United States. 

I beg. Sir, on this occasion of closing the 
correspondence with you connected with 
my mission, to express the satisfaction I 
feel at its successful termination, and to 
assure you of my high consideration and 
personal esteem and regard. 

ashbdrton. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, &c., &c., &c. 



THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 



Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. 

Department of State, Wasliington, 
March 28, 1843. 

Sir, — I transmit to you with this de- 
spatch a message from the President of the 
United States to Congress, communicated 
on the 27th of February, and accompanied 
by a report made from this department to 
the President, of the substance of a de- 
spatch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, 
which was by liim read to me on the 24th 
ultimo. 

Lord Aberdeen's despatch, as you will 
perceive, was occasioned by a passage in 
the President's message to Congress at the 
opening of its late session. The particular 
passage is not stated by his Lordsliip ; but 
no mistake will be committed, it is pre- 
sumed, in considering it to be that which 
was quoted by Sir Robert Peel and other 
gentlemen in the debate in the House of 
Commons, on the answer to the Queen's 
speech, on the 3d of February. 

The President regrets that it should have 
become necessary to hold a diplomatic cor- 
respondence upon the subject of a commu- 
nication from the head of the executive 
government to the legislature, drawing after 
it, as in this case, the further necessity of 
referring to observations made by persons 
in higli and responsible stations, in debates 
of public bodies. Such a necessity, how- 
ever, seems to be unavoidably incurred in 



consequence of Lord Aberdeen's despatch ; 
for, although the President's recent message 
may be regarded as a clear exposition of 
his opinions on the subject, yet a just re- 
spect for her Majesty's government, and 
a disposition to meet all questions with 
promptness, as well as with frankness and 
candor, require that a formal answer should 
be made to that despatch. 

The words in the message at the opening 
of the session which are complained of, it 
is supposed, are the following: "Although 
Lord Aberdeen, in his correspondence with 
the American envoys at Loudon, expressly 
disclaimed all right to detain an xVmerican 
ship on the high seas, even if found with a 
cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the 
British pretension to a mere claim to visit 
and inquire, yet it could not well be dis- 
cerned by the Executive of the United 
States how such visit and inquiry could be 
made without detention on the voyage, and 
consequent interruption to the trade. It 
was regarded as tlie right of search, pre- 
sented only in a new form and expressed in 
different words ; and I therefore felt it to 
be my duty distinctly to declare, in my an- 
nual message to Congress, that no such con- 
cession could be made, and that the United 
States had both the will and the ability to 
enforce their own laws, and to protect their 
flag from being used for purposes wholly 
forbidden by those laws, and obnoxious to 
the moral censure of the world." 



THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 



G61 



This statement would teml, as Lord Aher- 
decn tliiiiks, to convey tlie sii[ii)osition, not 
onl3' tliat the question of the right of search 
had been disavowed by tlie Hritisli pleni- 
potentiary at Washington, but tiiat Great 
Britain had made concessions on that point. 

Lord Aberdeen is entirely correct in say- 
ing that the claim of a right of search was 
not discussed diH-ing the late negotiation, 
and that neither was an}' concession re- 
quired by this government, nor made by 
that of her Britannic Majesty. 

The eightli and ninth articles of the 
treaty of Washington constitute a mutual 
stipulation for concerted efforts to abolish 
the African slave-trade. The stipulation, 
it may be admitted, has no other effects on 
the pretensions of either party than this : 
Great Britain had claimed as a riyld that 
which this government could not admit to 
be a rifiht, and, in the exercise of a just and 
proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted 
to which might render unnecessary both 
the assertion and the denial of such claim. 

There probably are those who think that 
what Lord Aberdeen calls a right of visit, 
and which he attempts to distinguish from 
the right of search, ought to have been ex- 
pressly acknowledged by the government 
of the United States. At the same time, 
there are those on the other side who think 
that the formal surrender of such right of 
visit should have been demanded by the 
United States as a precedent condition to 
the negotiation for treaty stipulations on 
the subject of the African slave-trade. But 
the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, 
nor denies the claim in terms ; it neither 
formally insists upon it, nor formally re- 
nounces it. Still, the whole proceeding 
shows that the object of the stipulation 
was to avoid such differences and disputes 
as had already arisen, and the serious i)rac- 
tical evils and inconveniences which, it can- 
not be denied, are always liable to result 
from the practice which Great Britain had 
asserted to be lawful. These evils and in- 
conveniences had been acknowledged by 
both governments. They had been such as 
to cause much irritation, and to threaten to 
disturb the amicable sentiments which pre- 
vailed between them. Both governments 
were sincerely desirous of abolishing the 
slave-trade; both governments were equally 
desirous of avoiding occasion of complaint 
by their respective citizens and subjects ; 
and both governments regarded the eighth 
and ninth articles as effectual for their 
avowed purpose, and likely, at the same 



time, to ])reserve all friemlly relations, and 
to take away causis of future indivitlual 
complaints. The treaty of Washington was 
intended to fulfil the obligations entered 
into by the treaty of (ihent. It stands by 
itself; is clear and intelligible. It speaks 
its own language, and manifests its own 
purpose. It needs no interpretation, and 
requires no comment. As a fact, as an im- 
portant occurrence in national intenourse, 
it may have important bearings on existing 
questions resjiecting the i)ub!ic law ; and 
individuals, or perhaps governuienls, may 
not agree as to what these bearings really 
are. Great Britain has discussions, if not 
controversies, with other great European 
states upon the subject of visit or search. 
These states will naturally make their own 
commentary on the treaty of Washington, 
and draw their own inferences from the 
fact that such a treaty has been entered 
into. Its stipulations, in the mean time, 
are ])lain, explicit, and satisfactory to both 
parties, and will be fultilled on the part of 
the United States, and, it is not doul)ted, on 
the part of Great Britain also, with the 
utmost good faith. 

Holding this to be the true character of 
the treaty, I might, jierliaps, excuse myself 
from entering into the consideration of the 
grounds of that claim of a right to visit 
merchant-ships for certain purposes, in time 
of peace, which Lord Aberdeen asserts for 
the British government, and declares that it 
can never surrender. But I deem it right, 
nevertheless, and no more than justly re- 
spectful toward the British government, not 
to leave the point witiu)Ut remark. 

In his recent message to Congress, the 
President, referring to the language of 
Lord Aberdeen in his note to Mr. Kverett 
of the 20th of December, 1841, and in his 
late despatch to Mr. Fox, says : " These 
declarations may well lead us to doubt 
whether the apparent ditlerence between 
the two governnu-nts is not rather one of 
definition than of jtrinciple." 

Lord Alierdeen, in liis note to you of the 
20th of December, says : "The uiidirsigned 
again renounces, as he has already done in 
the most explicit terms, any right on the 
part of the Hriti>h govcrnmiiit to search 
American vessels in time of peace. The 
right of search, except when sitecially con- 
ceded by treaty, is u iiiire belligerent 
right, and can have no existence on the 
high .'^eas during peace. The un<lersigned 
ap|>reliends, howevt-r, that the right of 
search is not conlined to the veriiicatiou 



662 



APPENDIX. 



of the nationality of the vessel, but also 
extends to the object of the voyage and 
the nature of the cargo. The sole pur- 
pose of the British cruisers is to ascertain 
whether the vessels they meet with are 
really American or not. The right asserted 
has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of 
search, either in principle or practice. It is 
simply a right to satisfy the party who has 
a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, 
that the vessel actually is what her colors 
announce. This right we concede as freely 
as we exercise. The British cruisers are not 
instructed to detain American vessels under 
any circumstances whatever; on the con- 
trary, they are ordered to abstain from all 
interference with them, be they slavers or 
otlierwise. But where reasonable suspicion 
exists that the American flag has been 
abused for the purpose of covering the 
vessel of another nation, it would appear 
scarcely credible, had it not been made 
manifest by the repeated protestations of 
their representative, that the government 
of the United States, which has stigma- 
tized and abolished the trade itself, should 
object to the adoption of such means as are 
indispensably necessary for ascertaining the 
truth." 

And in his recent despatch to Mr. Fox 
his Lordship further says : " That the Presi- 
dent might be assured that Great Britain 
would always respect the just claims of 
the United States. That the British gov- 
ernment made no pretension to interfere in 
any manner whatever, either by detention, 
visit, or search, with vessels of the United 
States, known or believed to be such, but 
that it still maintained, and would exercise 
when necessary, its own right to ascertain 
the genuineness of any flag which a sus- 
pected vessel might bear; that if, in the ex- 
ercise of this right, either from involuntary 
error, or in spite of every precaution, loss 
or injury should be sustained, a prompt 
reparation would be afforded ; but that it 
should entertain, for a single instant, the 
notion of abandoning the right itself, would 
be quite impossible." 

This, then, is the British claim, as asserted 
by her Majesty's government. 

In his remarks in the speech already re- 
ferred to, in the House of Commons, the 
first minister of the crown said : " There is 
nothing more distinct than the right of visit 
is from the right of search. Search is a 
belligerent right, and not to be exercised 
in time of peace, except when it has been 
conceded by treaty. The right of search 



extends not only to the vessel, but to the 
cargo also. The riglit of visit is quite dis- 
tinct from this, though the two are often 
confounded. The right of search, with re- 
spect to American vessels, we entirely and 
utterly disclaim ; nay, more, if we knew 
that an American vessel were furnished 
with all the materials requisite for the 
slave-trade, if we knew that the decks 
were prepared to receive hundreds of hu- 
man beings within a space in which life is 
almost impossible, still we should be bound 
to let that American vessel pass on. But the 
right we claim is to know whether a vessel 
pretending to be American, and hoisting the 
American flag, be honajide American." 

The President's message is regarded as 
holding opinions in opposition to these. 

The British government, then, supposes 
that the right of visit and the riglit of search 
are essentially distinct in their nature, and 
that this difference is well known and gen- 
erally acknowledged ; that the difference be- 
tween them consists in their different ob- 
jects and purposes : one, the visit, having 
for its object nothing but to ascertain the 
nationality of the vessel ; the other, tlie 
search, by an inquisition, not only into the 
nationality of the vessel, but the nature 
and object of her voyage, and the true 
ownership of her cargo. 

The government of the United States, on 
the other hand, maintains that there is no 
such well-known and acknowledged, nor, 
indeed, any broad and generic difference 
between what has been usually called visit, 
and what has been usually called search ; 
that the right of visit, to be effectual, must 
come, in the end, to include search ; and 
thus to exercise, in peace, an authority 
which the law of nations only allows in 
times of war. If such well-known distinc- 
tion exists, where are the proofs of it? 
What writers of authority on public law, 
what adjudications in courts of admiralty, 
what public treaties, recognize iti No such 
recognition has presented itself to the gov- 
ernment of the United States ; but, on the 
contrary, it understands that public writers, 
courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for 
two centuries, used the words " visit " and 
" search " in the same sense. What Great 
Britain and the United States mean by the 
" right of search," in its broadest sense, is 
called by Continental writers and jurists 
by no other name than the " right of visit." 
Visit, therefore, as it has been understood, 
implies not only a right to inquire into the 
national character, but to detain the vessel, 



THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 



GG3 



to stop the progress of the voyage, to ex- 
amine papers, to decide on their regularity 
and authontieity, and to make iiKiuisition 
on board for enemy's projjerty, and into the 
business wliich tlie vessel is engaged in. In 
other words, it describes tlie entire right of 
belligerent visitation and search. Such a 
right is justly disclaimed by the British gov- 
ernment in time of peace. They, neverthe- 
less, insist on a right which they denominate 
a right of visit, and by that word describe 
the claim which they assert. It is proper, 
and due to the importance and delicacy of 
the questions involved, to take care that, in 
discussing them, both governments under- 
stand the terms which may be used in the 
same sense. If, indeed, it should be mani- 
fest that the difference between the parties 
is only verbal, it niiglit be hoped that no 
harm would be done ; but the government 
of the United States thinks itself not justly 
chargeable with excessive jealousy, or with 
too great scrupulosity in the use of words, 
in insisting on its opinion that there is no 
such distinction as the British government 
maintains between visit and search ; and 
that there is no right to visit in time of 
peace, except in the execution of revenue 
laws or other municipal regulations, in 
which cases the right is usually exercised 
near the coast, or within the marine league, 
or where the vessel is justly suspected of 
violating the law of nations by piratical 
aggression ; but, wherever exercised, it is a 
right of search. 

Nor can the United States government 
agree that the term "right" is justly ap- 
plied to such exercise of power as the Brit- 
ish government thinks it indispensable to 
maintain in certain cases. The right as- 
serted is a right to ascertain whether a 
merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the 
protection of the flag which she may hap- 
pen to have hoisted, such vessel being in 
circumstances which render her liable to 
the susi)icion, first, that she is not entitled 
to the protection of the flag ; and secondly, 
that, if not entitled to it, she is, either by 
the law of England, as an English vessel, 
or under the provisions of treaties with 
certain European powers, subject to tlie 
supervision and search of British cruisers. 
And yet Lord Aberdeen says, " that if, in 
the exercise of this right, either from invol- 
untary error, or in sjjite of every ])recau- 
tion, loss or injury should be sustained, a 
prompt reparation would be afforded." 

It is not easy to perceive how these con- 
sequences can be admitted justly to flow 



from the fair exercise of a clear riglit. If 
injury be produced by the exercise of a 
right, it would seem strange that it shouM 
be repairi'd, as if it had been the effect of 
a wrongful act. The general rule of law 
certainly is, that, in the jirojuT and jirudiiit 
exercisi- uf his own right, no one is answer- 
able for undesigut'd injuries. It may bu 
said that the right is a (lualifiid riglit; that 
it is a right to do certain acts of force at 
the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, 
and of l)eing made answerable for all dam- 
ages. But such an argument would prove 
every trespass to be matter of right, sul>- 
ject only to just responsibility. If force 
were allowed to such reasoning in other 
cases, it would follow that an iudivi<luars 
right in his own property was hardly more 
than a well-founded claim for compensa- 
tion if he should bt- (k'])rived of it. But 
compensation is that which is rendered for 
injury, and is not conunutation, or forced 
equivalent, for acknowludged rights. It 
implies, at least in its general interpretation, 
the commission of some wrongful act. 

But, without pressing further these in- 
quiries into the accuracy and jjropriety of 
definitions and the use of words, I proceeil 
to draw your attention to the thing itself, 
and to consider what these acts are which 
the British government insists its cruisers 
have a right to perform, and to what con- 
sequences they naturally and necessarily 
tend. An eminent member of the House 
of Connnons ' thus states the British claim, 
and his statement is acquiesced in and adopt- 
ed by the first minister of the crown: — 

"The claim of this country is for the 
right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a 
merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the 
protection of the flag which she may haj)- 
pen to have hoisted, such vessel bt'ing in 
circumstances which rendered her liable to 
the susi)icion, first, that she was not enti- 
tled to the protection of the flag; and, sec- 
ondly, if not entitled to it, she was, either 
under the law of nations or the j)rovision8 
of treaties, subjoi-t to the sujiervision and 
control of our cruisers." 

Now the question is, Bij what tneans is 
this ascertainment to be effected? 

As we understand the general and set- 
tled rules of public law, in resjtect to shi])8 
of war sailing under the authority of their 
government, "to arrest pirates and other 
public offenders," there is no reason why 
they may not approach any vessels descried 

1 Mr. Wood, now Sir Charles Wood, i;haii- 
cellor of the E.xclie(iuur. 



664 



APPENDIX. 



at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their 
real characters. Such a right of approach 
seems indispensable for the fair and dis- 
creet exercise of their authority ; and the 
use of it cannot be justly deemed indicative 
of any design to insult or injure those they 
approach, or to impede them in their law- 
ful commerce. On the other hand, it is as 
clear that no ship is, under such circum- 
stances, bound to lie by or wait the ap- 
proach of any other ship. She is at full 
liberty to pursue her voyage in lier own 
way, and to use all necessary precautions 
to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise 
or hostile attack. Her right to the free 
use of the ocean is as perfect as that of 
any other ship. An entire equality is pre- 
sumed to exist. She has a right to consult 
her own safety, but at the same time slie 
must take care not to violate the rights of 
others. She may use any precautions dic- 
tated by the prudence or fears of her offi- 
cers, either as to delay, or the progress or 
course of her voyage ; but she is not at 
liberty to inflict injuries upon other inno- 
cent parties simply because of conjectural 
dangers. 

But if the vessel thus approached at- 
tempts to avoid the vessel approaching, or 
does not comply with her commander's or- 
der to send him her papers for his inspec- 
tion, nor consent to be visited or detained, 
what is next to be done 1 Is force to be 
used ? And if force be used, may that 
force be lawfully repelled 1 These ques- 
tions lead at once to the elemental prin- 
ciple, the essence of the British claim. 
Suppose the merchant-vessel be in truth 
an American vessel engaged in lawful com- 
merce, and that she does not choose to be 
detained. Suppose she resists the visit. 
What is the consequence ? In all cases 
in which the belligerent right of visit 
exists, resistance to the exercise of that 
right is regarded as just cause of condem- 
nation, both of vessel and cargo. Is that 
penalty, or what other penalty, to be in- 
curred by resistance to visit in time of 
peace f Or suppose that force be met by 
force, gun returned for gun, and the com- 
mander of the cruiser, or some of his sea- 
men, be killed; what description of offence 
will have been committed ? It would be 
said, m behalf of the commander of the 
cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a 
vessel of England, Brazil, or Portugal ; 
bat does this mistake of his take away 
from the American vessel the right of self- 
defence 1 The writers of authority declare 



it to be a principle of natural law, that the 
privilege of self-defence exists against an 
assailant who mistakes the object of his 
attack for another whom he had a right to 
assail. 

Lord Aberdeen cannot fail to see, there- 
fore, what serious consequences might en- 
sue, if it were to be admitted that this 
claim to visit, in time of peace, however 
limited or defined, should be permitted to 
exist as a strict matter of right ; for if it 
exist as a right, it must be followed by cor- 
responding duties and obligations, and the 
failure to fulfil those duties would natu- 
rally draw penal consequences after it, till 
erelong it would become, in truth, little 
less, or little other, than the belligerent 
riglit of search. 

If visit or visitation be not accompanied 
by search, it will be in most cases merely 
idle. A sight of papers may be demanded, 
and papers may be produced. But it is 
known that slave-traders carry false papers, 
and different sets of papers. A search for 
other papers, then, must be made where 
suspicion justifies it, or else the whole pro- 
ceeding would be nugatory. In suspicious 
cases, the language and general appearance 
of the crew are among the means of ascer- 
taining the national character of the vessel. 
The cargo on board, also, often indicates 
the country from which she comes. Her 
log-books, showing the previous course and 
events of her voyage, her internal fitting 
up and equipment, are all evidences for her, 
or against her, on her allegation of charac- 
ter. These matters, it is obvious, can only 
be ascertained by rigorous search. 

It may be asked. If a vessel may not be 
called on to show her papers, why does she 
carry papers ? No doubt she may be called 
on to show her papers ; but the question is. 
Where, when, and by whom "? Not in time 
of peace, on the high seas, where her rights 
are equal to the rights of any other vessel, 
and where none has a right to molest her. 
The use of her papers is, in time of war, to 
prove her neutrality when visited by bel- 
ligerent cruisers ; and in both peace and 
war, to show her national character, and 
the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports 
of other countries to which she may pro- 
ceed for purposes of trade. 

It appears to the government of the 
United States, that the view of this whole 
subject which is the most naturally taken 
is also the most legal, and most in analogy 
with other cases. British cruisers have a 
right to detain British merchantmen for 



THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 



G6.3 



certain purposes ; and the}' have a riglit, 
acquired by treaty, to detain niercluint- 
vessels of several other nations for the 
same purposes. But they have no rif^lit at 
all to detain an American merchant-vessel. 
This Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest 
manner. Any detention of an American 
vessel by a British cruiser is therefore a 
wrong, a trespass ; althougli it may be 
done under the belief that slie was a Brit- 
ish vessel, or that she belonged to a nation 
which had conceded the right of sucli de- 
tention to the Britisli cruisers, and tlie tres- 
pass therefore an inA'oluntary trespass. If 
a ship of war, in thick weatlier, or in the 
darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a 
neutral vessel, under the belief that she is 
an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass, a mere 
wrong; and cannot be said to be an act 
done nnder any right, accompanied by re- 
sponsibility for damages. So if a civil 
officer on land have process against one 
individual, and through mistake arrest 
another, this arrest is wholly tortious ; no 
one would think of saying that it was done 
under any lawful exercise of authority, 
subject only to responsibility, or tliat it 
was any thing but a mere trespass, though 
an imintentional trespass. The municipal 
law does not undertake to lay down before- 
hand any rule for the government of such 
cases ; and as little, in the opinion of tlie 
government of the United States, does the 
public law of the world lay down before- 
hand any rule for the government of cases 
of involuntary trespasses, detentions, and 
injuries at sea; except that in both classes 
of cases law and reason make a distinction 
between injuries committed through mis- 
take and injuries committed by design, tlie 
former being entitled to fair and just com- 
pensation, the latter demanding exemplary 
damages, and sometimes personal punish- 
ment. Tlie government of the United 
States has frequently made known its opin- 
ion, wliicli it now repeats, that the jtractice 
of detaining American vessels, thougli sub- 
ject to just compensation if such detention 
afterward turn out to have been without 
good cause, however guarded by instruc- 
tions, or however cautiously exercised, 
necessarily leads to serious inconvenience 
and injury. The amount of loss caimot be 
always well ascertained. Compensation, if 
it be adequate in the amount, may still 
necessarily be long delayed ; and tlie pen- 
dency of sucli claims always proves trou- 
blesome to the governments of both coun- 
tries. These detentions, too, frequently 



irritate individuals, cause warm Idood, and 
produce nothing i)ut ill effects on the ami- 
cable relations existing between the coun- 
tries. We wish, therefore, to ])Ut an end 
to them, and to avoid all occasions for their 
recurrence. 

On the whole, the government of the 
United States, while it has n(jt conceded a 
mutual right of visit or search, as has luvn 
done by the parties to the quintuple treaty 
of December, 1841, does not admit that, by 
the law and practice of nations, there is any 
such thing as a right of visit, distinguished 
by well-known rules and definitions from 
the right of search. 

It does not admit that visit of Ameri- 
can merchant-vessels by British cruisers is 
founded on any right, notwithstanding tlie 
cruiser may supjxise such vessel to be Brit- 
ish, Brazilian, or Portuguese. We cannot 
but see that the detention and examination 
of American vessels by British cruisers has 
already led to consequences, and fear that, 
if continued, it would still le;id to further 
consequences, highly injurious to the law- 
ful commerce of the United States. 

At the same time, the government of the 
United States fully admits that its flag can 
give no immunity to ])irates, nor to any 
other than to regularly docunienteil Ameri- 
can vessels. It was upon this view of the 
whole case, and with a firm conviction of 
the truth of these sentiments, that it cheer- 
fully assumed the duties contained in the 
treaty of Washington ; in the hope that 
thereby causes of dilliculty and ditlVrcnco 
might be altogether removed, and that the 
two powers might be enabled to act con- 
currently, cordially, and effectually for the 
siijipression of a traffic which both regard 
as a reproach upon the civilization of the 
age, and at war with every jirinciple of 
hum.'iiiity and every Christian sentiment. 

The government of the United States 
has no interest, nor is it under tiie influence 
of any oi)ini()ns, which sliouhl lead it to de- 
sire any derogation of the just authority 
and rights of maritime power. But in the 
convictions which it entertains, and in the 
measuri'S wliith it has adopted, it has bei-n 
governed solely by a sincere desire to sup- 
jjort those principles and those practices 
which it believes to be conformable to \ni\>- 
lic law, and favorable to the peace and 
harmony of nations. 

Both houses of Congress, with a remarka- 
ble degree of unanimity, have made express 
j)rovisions for carrying intn elTect the eighth 
article of the treaty. An .American squad- 



666 



APPENDIX. 



ron will immediately proceed to the coast 
of Africa. Instructions for its commander 
are in the course of preparation, and copies 
■will be furnished to the British govern- 
ment; and the President confidently be- 
lieves, that the cordial concurrence of the 
two governments in the mode agreed on 



will be more effectual than any efforts yet 
made for the suppression of the slave-trade. 
You will read this despatch to Lord Ab- 
erdeen, and, if he desire it, give him a copy. 
I am, Sir, &c., &c. 

Daniel Webster. 
Edward Everett, Esq., &c., &c., cScc. 



LETTERS TO GENERAL CASS ON THE TREATY 

OF WASHINGTON. 



Mr. Webster to General Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, 
August 20, 1842. 

Sir, — You will see by the enclosed the 
result of the negotiations lately had in this 
city between this department and Lord Ash- 
burton. The treaty has been ratified by 
the President and Senate. 

In communicating to you this treaty, I 
am directed b}' the President to draw your 
particular attention to those articles which 
relate to the suppression of the African 
slave-trade. 

After full and anxious consideration of 
this very delicate subject, the government 
of the United States has come to the con- 
clusion which you will see expressed in the 
President's message to the Senate accom- 
panying the treaty. 

Without intending or desiring to influ- 
ence the policy of other governments on 
this important subject, this government has 
reflected on what was due to its own char- 
acter and position, as the leading maritime 
power on the American continent, left free 
to make choice of such means for the fulfil- 
ment of its duties as it should deem best 
suited to its dignity. The result of its re- 
flections has been, that it does not concur 
in measures which, for whatever benevolent 
purpose they may be adopted, or with what- 
ever care and moderation they may be ex- 
ercised, have yet a tendency to place the 
police of the seas in the hands of a single 
power. It chooses rather to follow its own 
laws with its own sanction, and to carry 
them into execution by its own authority. 
Disposed to act in the spirit of the most 
cordial concurrence with other nations for 
the suppression of the African slave-trade, 
that great reproach of our times, it deems 



it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, 
though concurrent, should be independent ; 
and it believes that from this independence 
it will derive a greater degree of efficiency. 

You will perceive, however, that, in 
the opinion of this government, cruising 
against slave-dealers on the coast of Africa 
is not all which is necessary to be done in 
order to put an end to the traffic. There 
are markets for slaves, or the unhappy 
natives of Africa would not be seized, 
chained, and carried over the ocean into 
slavery. These markets ought to be shut. 
And, in the treaty now communicated to 
you, the high contracting ])arties have stip- 
ulated " that they will unite, in all becom- 
ing representations and remonstrances, with 
any and all powers within whose dominions 
such markets are allowed to exist; and 
that they will urge upon all sucii powers 
the propriety and duty of closing such 
markets effectually, at once and for ever." 

You are furnished, then, with the Ameri- 
can policy in regard to this interesting 
subject. First, independent but cordially 
concurrent efforts of maritime states to sup- 
press, as far as possible, the trade on the 
coast, by means of competent and, well- 
appointed squadrons, to watch the shores 
and scour the neighboring seas. Secondly, 
concurrent, becoming remonstrance with all 
governments who tolerate within their ter- 
ritories markets for the purchase of African 
negroes. There is much reason to believe 
that, if other states, professing equal hos- 
tility to this nefarious traffic', would give 
their own powerful concurrence ^ and co- 
operation to these remonstrances, tlie gen- 
eral effect would be satisfactory, and that 
the cupidity and crimes of individuals would 
at length cease to find both their temp- 
tation and their reward in the bosom of 



LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



667 



Christian states, and in the permission of 
Christian ^governments. 

It will still remain for each government 
to revise, execute, and make more effectual 
its own municipal laws against its subjects 
or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in 
any way give aid or countenance to others 
concerned in this traffic. 

You are at liberty to make tlie contents 
of this despatch known to the French gov- 
ernment. 

I have, &c. 

Daniel Webster. 
Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., «S;c. 



Mr. F. Webster to General Cass. 

Department of State, Waslungton, 
October 11, 1842. 

SiK, — I have to acknowledge the receipt 
of your despatch of the 17th of September 
last, requesting permission to return home. 

I have submitted the despatch to the Pres- 
ident, and am by him directed to say, that 
although he much regrets that your own 
wishes should, at this time, terminate your 
mission to the court of France, where for a 
long period you have rendered your coun- 
try distinguished service, in all instances to 
its honor and to the satisfaction of the gov- 
ernment, and where you occupy so favor- 
able a position, from the more than ordi- 
nary good intelligence which is understood 
to subsist between you, personally, and the 
members of the French government, and 
from the esteem entertained for you by its 
illustrious head ; yet he cannot refuse your 
request to return once more to your homo 
and your countrj-, so that j'ou can pay that 
attention to your personal and private af- 
fairs which your long absence and constant 
employment in the service of your govern- 
ment may now render most necessary. 

I have. Sir, to tender you, on behalf of 
the President, his most cordial good wishes, 
and am, &c. 

Fletcher Webster, 

Acting Secretary of State. 
Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Webster to General Ca.<ts. 

Department of State, Washington, 
November 14, 1842. 

Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge 
the receipt of your despatch of the 3d of 
October, brought by the "Great Western," 
which arrived at New York on the Gth in- 
stant. 



It is jirobable you will have embarked for 
the LTnited States licfore my conununicatidU 
can now reach you; but as it is thought 
proper that j'our letter should be answired, 
and as circmnstances may p(issil>ly have 
occurred to delay your departure, this will 
be transmitted to Paris in the onlinary way. 
Your letter has caused the President con- 
siderable concern. Entertaining a lively 
sense of the respectable and useful manner 
in which you have discharged, for several 
years, the duties of an imjiortant foreign 
mission, it occasions him real regret and 
pain, that j-our last official communication 
shoidd be of such a character as that he 
camiot give to it his entire and cordial ap- 
probation. 

It appears to be intended as a sort of pro- 
test, a remonstrance, in the form of an offi- 
cial despatch, against a transaction of the 
government to which you were not a party, 
in which you had no agency whatever, and 
for the results of which you were no way 
answerable. This would seem an unusual 
and extraordinary proceeding. In common 
with every other citizen of the republic, you 
have an unquestionable right to fi)rm opinions 
upon public transactions, and the conduct 
of public men ; but it will hardly be thought 
to be among either the duties or the priv- 
ileges of a minister abroad to make formal 
remonstrances and protests against proceed- 
ings of the various branches of the govern- 
ment at home, upon subjects in relation to 
which he himself has not been charged with 
any duty or partaken any responsibility. 

The negotiation and conclusion of the 
treaty of Washington were in the haiuls of 
the President and Senate. They had acted 
upon this important subject according to 
their convictions of duty and of the jjublic 
interest, and had ratified the treaty. It was 
a thing done; and although your o])ini()n 
might be at variance with that of the I'res- 
ident and Senate, it is not perceived that 
you had any cause of comjilaint, remon- 
strance, or protest, more than any other cit- 
izen who might entertain the same ojiininn. 
In your letter of the 17th of Sei)teml)er, 
requesting your recall, you observe : " Tlic 
mail by the steam-iiacket which left Boston 
the 1st instant has just arrived, and has 
brought intelligence of the ratificali(m of 
the treaties recently concluded with (Jreat 
Britain. All ai)prehensioiis, therefore, of 
any immediate ditficullies with that country 
are at an end, and 1 do not see that any 
public interest demands my furiiier resi- 
dence m Europe. I can no longer be use- 



668 



APPENDIX. 



f ul here, and the state of my private affairs 
requires my presence at home. Under these 
circumstances, I beg you to submit to the 
President my wish for permission to retire 
from this mission, and to return to the 
United States without delay." 

As you appeared at that time not to be 
acquainted with the provisions of the treaty, 
it was inferred tliat your desire to return 
home proceeded from tlie conviction tliat, in- 
asmuch, as all apprehensions of immediate differ- 
ences ivith Great Britain xoere at an end, you 
wouhl no longer be useful at Paris. Placing 
this interpretation on your letter, and be- 
lieving, as you yourself allege, that your 
long absence abroad rendered it desirable 
for you to give some attention to your pri- 
vate affairs in this country, the President 
lost no time in yielding to your request, 
and, in doing so, signified to you the senti- 
ments of approbation which he entertained 
for your conduct abroad. You may, then, 
well imagine the great astonishment which 
the declaration contained in your despatch 
of the 3d of October, that you could no 
longer remain in France honorably to your- 
self or advantageously to the country, and 
that the proceedings of this government had 
placed you in a false position, from which 
you could escape only by returning home, 
created in his mind. 

The President perceives not the slightest 
foundation for these opinions. He cannot 
see how your usefulness as minister to 
France should be terminated by the settle- 
ment of difficulties and disputes between 
the United States and Great Britain. You 
have been charged witli no duties connected 
with the settlement of these questions, or in 
any way relating to them, beyond the com- 
munication to the French government of the 
President's approbation of your letter of 
the 13th of February, written without pre- 
vious instructions from this department. 
This government is not informed of any 
other act or proceeding of yours connected 
with any part of the subject, nor does it 
know that your official conduct and charac- 
ter have become in any other way connected 
■with the question of the right of search ; 
and that letter having been approved, and 
the French government having been so in- 
formed, the President is altogether at a loss 
to understand how you can regard yourself 
as placed in a false position. If the char- 
acter or conduct of any one was to be af- 
fected, it could only be the character and 
conduct of the President himself. Tlie gov- 
ernment has done nothing, most assuredly, 



to place you in a false position. Represent- 
ing your country at a foreign court, you 
saw a transaction about to take place be- 
tween the government to which you were 
accredited and another power, which you 
thought might have a prejudicial effect on 
the interest of your own country. Think- 
ing, as it is to be presumed, tliat the case 
was too pressing to wait for instructions, 
you presented a protest against that trans- 
action, and our government approved your 
proceeding. This is your only oflScial con- 
nection with the whole subject. If after 
this the President had sanctioned the nego- 
tiation of a treaty, and the Senate had rat- 
ified it, containing provisions in the highest 
degree objectionable, however the govern- 
ment might be discredited, your exemption 
from all blame and censure would have 
been complete. Having delivered your let- 
ter of the 13th of February to the i>ench 
government, and having received the Pres- 
ident's approbation of that proceeding, it is 
most manifest that you could be in no de- 
gree responsible for what should be done 
afterward, and done by otiiers. The Pres- 
ident, therefore, cannot C(jneeive what par- 
ticular or personal interest of yours was 
affected by the subsequent negotiation here, 
or how the treaty, the result of that nego- 
tiation, should put an end to your useful- 
ness as a public minister at the court of 
France, or in any way affect your official 
character or conduct. 

It is impossible not to see that such a pro- 
ceeding as you have seen fit to adopt might 
produce much inconvenience, and even se- 
rious prejudice, to the public interests. 
Your opinion is against the treaty, a treaty 
concluded and formally ratified ; and, to 
support that opinion, while yet in the ser- 
vice of the government, you put a construc- 
tion on its provisions such as your own gov- 
ernment does not put upon them, such as 
you must be aware the enlightened public 
of Europe does not put upon them, and 
such as England herself has not put upon 
them as yet, so far as we know. 

It may become necessary hereafter to 
publish your letter, in connection with other 
correspondence of the mission ; and al- 
though it is not to be presumed that you 
looked to such publication, because such a 
presumption would impute to you a claim 
to put forth your private opinions upon the 
conduct of the President and Senate, in a 
transaction finished and concluded, through 
the imposing form of a public despatch, yet, 
if published, it cannot be foreseen how far 



LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



609 



England might hereafter rely on your au- I 
thority for a construction favorahle to lier 
own pretensions, and inconsistent with the 
interest and honor of the United States. It 
is certain that you would most sedulously 
desire to avoid any such attitude. You 
would be slow to express opinions, in a sol- 
emn and official form, favorable to another 
government, and on the authority of which 
opinions that other government might here- 
after found new claims or set up new prc- 
ten.-;ions. It is for this reason, as well as 
others, that the President feels so much re- 
gret at your desire of placing your construc- 
tion of the provisions of the treaty, and 
your objections to those provisions, accord- 
ing to your construction, upon the records 
of the government. 

Before examining the several objections 
suggested by you, it may be proper to take 
notice of what you say upon the course of 
the negotiation. In regard to this, having 
observed that the national dignity of the 
United States had not been compromised 
down to the time of the President's message 
to the last session of Congress, you proceed 
to say : " But England then urged the 
United States to enter into a conventional 
arrangement, by which we might be pledged 
to concur with her in measures for the sup- 
pression of the slave-trade. Till then we 
liad executed our own laws in our own way. 
But, yielding to this application, and de- 
parting from our former principle of avoid- 
ing European combinations u])on subjects 
not American, we stipulated in a solemn 
treat}', tliat we would carry into effect our 
own laws, and fixed the mininnim force we 
would employ for that purpose." 

The President cannot conceive how you 
should have been led to adventure upon 
such a statement as this. It is but a tissue 
of mistakes. England did not urge the 
United States to enter into this conven- 
tional arrangement. The United States 
yielded to no application from Ki-.gland. 
The proposition for abolishing the slave- 
trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an 
American proposition ; it originated with 
the executive government of the United 
States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
responsibility. It stands upon it as its 
own mode of fulfilling its duties, and ac- 
complishing its objects. Nor have the 
United States departed, in this treaty, in 
the slightest degree, from their former 
principles of avoiding European combina- 
tions upon subjects not American, because 
the abolition of the African slave-trade is 



an American subject as empliatically as it 
is a European subject ; and indeed more so, 
inasmucli as tlie government of the United 
States took the first great steps in declar- 
ing that trade unlawful, ami in attempting 
its extinction. Tiie abolition of tiiis traffic 
is an object of the liighest interest to the 
American jieople and the American govern- 
ment ; and you seem strangely to have over- 
looked altogether the important fact, tiiat 
nearly thirty years ago, by the treaty of 
Ghent, the United States bomicl themselves, 
by solenm compact witli Kngland, to con- 
tinue " their efiforts to promote its entire 
abolition," l)oth partii's pledging tiiemselvcs 
by that treaty to use their best endeavors 
to accomplish so desirable an object. 

Again, you speak of an important con- 
cession made to the reiiewi'd a])plicatii^n of 
England. But the treaty, let it be repeated, 
makes no concession to Englanil wiiatever. 
It complies with no demand, grants no ap- 
plication, conforms to no request. All 
these statements, thus by you made, and 
which are so exceedingly erroneous, seem 
calculated to hold uj) the idea, that in this 
treaty your governnu-nt has been acting a 
subordinate, or even a complying part. 

The President is not a little startled that 
you should make such totally groundless 
assumjUions of fact, and then leave a dis- 
creditable inference to be drawn from them. 
He directs me not only to repel this infer- 
ence as it ought to be repelled, but also to 
bring to your serious consitleration and re- 
flection the propriety of such an assumed 
narration of facts as your despatch, in this 
respect, puts forth. 

Having informed the department that a 
copy of the letter of the 24th of August, 
addressed by me to you, hail bieii deliv- 
ered to M. Guizot, you proceed to say : " In 
executing this duty, I felt too well what 
was due to my government and country to 
intimate my regret to a foreign power that 
some declaration had not preceded the 
treaty, or some stipidation accomi)anied it, 
by which the extraonlinary pretension of 
Great Britain to search our sliiits at all 
times and in all places, first juit forth to 
the worhl by Lord I'ahnerston on the "JTlh 
of August, l!^41, and on the i;>tli of Octo- 
ber following again i)eremptorily claimed 
as a right liy Lord Aberdeen, woidd have 
bei'U abrogated, as ecjually incomi)atible 
with the laws of nations and with the inde- 
peixKnce of the Unite<l States. I confined 
myself, therefore, to a simple communica- 
tion of your letter." It may be true that 



670 



APPENDIX, 



the British pretension leads necessarily to 
consequences as broad and general as your 
statement. But it is no more than fair to 
state that pretension in the words of the 
British government itself, and then it be- 
comes matter of consideration and argu- 
ment how broad and extensive it really is. 
The last statement of this pretension, or 
claim, by tlie British government, is con- 
tained in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. 
Stevenson of the 13th of October, 1841. 
It is in these words : — 

" The undersigned readily admits, tliat to 
visit and search American vessels in time of 
peace, when that right of search is not granted 
by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, 
and a violation of national dignity and inde- 
pendence. But no such right is asserted. We 
sincerely desire to respect the vessels of the 
United States, but we may reasonably expect 
to know what it really is that we respect. 
Doubtless the flag is prima facie evidence of 
the nationality of the vessel; and, if this evi- 
dence were in its nature conclusive and irrefra- 
gable, it ought to preclude all further inquiry. 
But it is sufficiently notorious that the flags of 
all nations are liable to be assumed by those 
who have no right or title to bear them. Mr. 
Stevenson himself inWy admits the extent to 
which the American flag has been emplo^'ed for 
the purpose of covering this infamous traffic. 
The undersigned joins with Mr. Stevenson in 
deeply lamenting the evil; and he agrees with 
him in tiiinking that the United States ought 
not to be considered responsible for this abuse 
of their flag. But if all inquiry be resisted, 
even when carried no further than to ascertain 
the nationality of the vessel, and impunity be 
claimed for the most lawless and desperate of 
mankind, in the commission of this fraud, the 
undersigned greatly fears that it maj' be re- 
garded as something like an assumption of that 
responsibility which has been deprecated by Mr. 
Stevenson 

" The undersigned renounces all pretension 
on the part of the British government to visit 
and search American vessels in time of peace. 
Nor is it as American that such vessels are ever 
visited; but it has been the invariable practice 
of the British navy, and, as the undersigned 
believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain 
by visit the real nationality of merchant-vessels 
met with on the high seas, if there be good rea- 
son to apprehend their illegal character 

"The undersigned admits, that, if the Brit- 
ish cruiser should possess a knowledge of the 
Americaneharacterof any vessel, his visitation of 
such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. He 
further admits, that so much respect and honor 
are due to the American flag, that no vessel 
bearing it ought to be visited by a British 
cruiser, except under the most grave suspicious 



and well-founded doubts of the genuineness of 
its character. 

"The undersigned, although with pain, must 
add, that if such visit should lead to the proof 
of the American origin of the vessel, and that 
she was avowedly engaged in the slave-trade, 
exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and 
other usual implements of torture, or had even 
a number of these unfortunate beings on board, 
no British officer conld iiiterlere further. He 
might give information to the cruisers of the 
United States, but it could not be in his own 
power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the 
voyage aud the success of the undertaking. 

"It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost 
caution is necessary in the exercise of this right 
claimed by Great Britain. While we have re- 
course to the necessary, and, indeed, the only 
means for detecting imposture, the practice will 
be carefully guarded and limited to cases of 
strong suspicion. The undersigned begs to as- 
sure Mr. Stevenson that the most precise and 
positive instructions have been issued to her 
Majesty's officers on this subject." 

Such are the words of the British claim 
or pretension ; and it stood in this form at 
the delivery of the President's message to 
Congress in December last; a message in 
which you are pleased to say that the Brit- 
ish pretension was promptly met and firmly 
resisted. 

I may now proceed to a more particular 
examination of the objections which you 
make to the treaty. 

You observe that you think a just self- 
respect required of the government of the 
United States to demand of Lord Ashbur- 
ton a distinct renunciation of the British 
claim to search our vessels previous to en- 
tering into any negotiation. The govern- 
ment has thought otherwise; and this ap- 
pears to be your main objection to the 
treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only one 
which is clearly and distinctly stated. The 
government of the United States supposed 
that, in this respect, it stood in a position 
in which it had no occasion to demand any 
thing, or ask for any thing, of England. 
The British pretension, whatever it was, or 
however extensive, was well known to the 
President at the date of his message to 
Congress at the opening of the last session. 
And I must be allowed to remind you how 
the President treated this subject in that 
communication. 

" However desirous the United States may 
be," said he, "for the suppression of the slave- 
trade, they cannot consent to interpolations into 
the maritime code at the mere will and pleasure 
of other governments. We deny the right of 



LETTERS ON TIIE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



671 



any such interpolation to any one, or all the na- 
tions of the earth, without our consent. We 
chiim to have a voice in all amendments or 
alterations of that code; and when we are piven 
to understand, as in this instance, by a foreign 
government, that its treaties with otlier nations 
cannot be executed without tlie estaldishment 
and enforcement of new principles of mari- 
time police, to be applied without our consent, 
we must employ a language neitiier of equiv- 
ocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction. 
American citizens prosecuting a lawful commerce 
in the African seas, under the flag of tlu-ir coun- 
try, are not responsible for the abuse or unlaw- 
ful use of that flag bj* others; nor can they 
rightfully, on account of any such alleged 
abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained 
while on the ocean; and if thus molested and 
detained while pursuing honest voyages in the 
usual w.iy, and violating no law themselves, 
the3-are unquestionably entitled to indemnity." 

This declaration of tlie President stands : 
not a syllable of it has been, or will be, re- 
tracted. The principles which it announces 
rest on their inherent justice and proprie- 
ty, on their conformity to public law, and, 
so far as we arc concerned, on the deter- 
mination and ability of tlie country to main- 
tain tliem. To these principles the govern- 
ment is pledged, and that pledge it will be 
at all times ready to redeem. 

But what is your own language on this 
point ? You say, " This claim (the British 
claim), thus asserted and supj)orted, was 
promptly met and firmly repelled by the 
President in his message at the commencs- 
tnent of the last session of Congress ; and 
in your letter to me approving the course 
I had adopted in relation to tlie question of 
the ratification by France of the quintuple 
treaty, you consider the princij)les of that 
message as the established policy of the 
government." And you add, " So far, our 
national dignity was nncompromittcd." If 
this be so, what is there which has since 
occurred to compromit this dignity ? You 
shall yourself be judge of this; because 
you say, in a subsequent part of your let- 
ter, that " the mutual rights of tiie par- 
ties are in this respect wholly untouched." 
If, then, the British pretension had been 
promptly met and firmly repelled by the 
President's message ; if, so far, our national 
dignity had not been compromitted ; and 
if, as you further say, our rights remain 
wholly untouched by any subsequent act or 
proceeding, what ground is there on which 
to found complaint against the treaty ? 

But your sentiments on this point do not 
concur with the opinions of your govern- 



ment. That government is of opinion that 
the sentiments of the nioosage, wliicli you 
so highly ajiprove, are reaffirmed and cor- 
roborated by the treaty, and tin- corre- 
spondence accompanying it. The vi-ry ob- 
ject sought to be obtained, in propiising the 
mode adopted for abolishing the slavi-tradc, 
was to take away all pntiiRe what»ver for 
interrupting lawful commercf by tiie visi- 
tation of American vessels. Allow me to 
refer you, on this point, to the following 
passage in the message of the President to 
the Senate, accompanying the treaty : — 

" In my message at the commencement of 
the present session of Congress, I endeavored 
to state the principles wliidi this giivemmt-nt 
supports respecting the right of search and the 
immunity of flags. Desirous nf maintaining 
those principles fully, at the same time that ex- 
isting obligations should lie fullilled, I have 
thought it most consistent with the dignity 
and honor of the cnuntry that it sliouM t-xe- 
cute its own laws and |>erfiirm its own obli- 
gations by its own means and its own power. 
The examination or visitation of the mer- 
chant-vessels of one nation by the cruisers 
of another, for any purposes except those 
known and ackno>v!cd;,'ed by tlie law of na- 
tions, under whatever restraints or n-giilaiions 
it may take place, may lead to dangerous re- 
sults. It is far better by other means to suf>er- 
sede any supposed neces ity, or any motive, I'or 
such e.\amination or visit Interference with n 
merchant-vessel by an armed crui-^er is a'wavs 
a delicate proceeding, ant to touch the puint of 
national honor, as well as to affect the iiuerests 
of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, 
expedient, not only in accordance with tlio 
stipulations of the treaty of (Jhent, but at the 
same time as removing ail pri-te.\t tni the ]iart 
of others for violating the immunities of the 
American flag upon the seas, as they exist and 
are delined by the law of nations, to enter into 
the articles now submitted to the Se ate. 

"The treaty which I now submit to you pro- 
poses no alteration, mitigation, or moililication 
of the rules of the law of nations. It provides 
simply, that each of the two governments shall 
maintain on the coast of Africa a sutlicient 
squadron to enforce, separately and re>|M-c- 
ti\ily, the laws, rights, and obligations of the 
two couiUries for the suppn-ssion of the slave- 
trade." 

In the actual posture of things, the 
President tliought that tlie government of 
the United States, standing on its own 
rights and its own solemn <leclaration8, 
would only weaken its jjositioii by mak- 
ing such a demand as ajipi-arst to you to 
have been expedient. We mainiain the 
public law of the worhl a« «■ i...ive it 



672 



APPENDIX. 



and imderstand it to be established. We 
defend our own rights and our own honor, 
meeting all aggression at the boundary. 
Here we may well stop. 

You are pleased to observe, that " under 
the circumstances of the assertion of the 
British claim, in the correspondence of the 
British secretaries, and of its denial by 
the President of the United States, the 
eyes of Europe were upon these two great 
naval powers ; one of which had advanced 
a pretension, and avowed her determina- 
tion to enforce it, which might at any mo- 
ment bring them into collision." 

It is certainly true that the attention of 
Europe has been very much awakened, of 
late years, to the general subject, and quite 
alive, also, to whatever might take place in 
regard to it between the United States and 
Great Britain. And it is highly satisfactory 
to find, that, so far as we can learn, the 
opinion is universal that the government 
of the United States has fully sustained its 
rights and its dignity by the treaty which 
has been concluded. Europe, we believe, is 
happy to see that a collision, which might 
have disturbed the peace of the whole civ- 
ilized world, has been avoided in a manner 
which reconciles the performance of a high 
national duty, and the fulfilment of posi- 
tive stipulations, with the perfect immunity 
of flags and the equality of nations upon 
the ocean. I must be permitted to add, 
that, from everj' agent of the government 
abroad who has been heard from on the 
subject, with the single exception of your 
own letter, (an exception most deeply re- 
gretted,) as well as from every part of 
Europe where maritime rights have advo- 
cates and defenders, we have received 
nothing but congratulation. And at this 
moment, if the general sources of informa- 
tion may be trusted, our example has rec- 
ommended itself already to the regard of 
states the most jealous of British ascen- 
dency at sea ; and the treaty against which 
you remonstrate may soon come to be es- 
teemed by them as a fit model for imitation. 

Toward the close of your despatch, you 
are pleased to say : " By the recent treaty 
we are to keep a squadron upon the coast of 
Africa. We have kept one there for years ; 
during the whole term, indeed, of these 
efforts to put a stop to this most iniqui- 
tous commerce. The effect of the treaty 
is, therefore, to render it obligatory upon us, 
by a convention, to do what we have long 
done voluntarily ; to place our municipal 
laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of 



Congress." Should the effect of the treaty 
be to place our municipal laws, in some 
measure, beyond the reach of Congress, it 
is sufficient to say that all treaties contain- 
ing obligations necessarily do this. All 
treaties of commerce do it ; and, indeed, 
there is hardly a treaty existing, to which 
the United States are party, which does 
not, to some extent, or in some way, re- 
strain the legislative power. Treaties could 
not be made without producing this effect. 

But your remark would seem to imply, 
that, in your judgment, there is something 
derogatory to the character and dignity 
of the country in thus stipulating with a 
foreign power for a concurrent effort to 
execute the laws of each. It would be a 
sufficient refutation of this objection to 
say, that, if in this arrangement there be 
any thing derogatory to the character and 
dignity of one party, it must be equally de- 
rogatory, since the stipulation is perfectly 
mutual, to the character and dignity of 
both. But it is derogatory to the char- 
acter and dignity of neither. The objec- 
tion seems to proceed still upon the implied 
ground that the abolition of the slave-trade 
is more a duty of Great Britain, or a more 
leading object with her, than it is or should 
be with us ; as if, in this great effort of civ- 
ilized nations to do away the most cruel 
traffic that ever scourged or disgraced the 
world, we had not as high and honorable, 
as just and merciful, a part to act, as any 
other nation upon the face of the earth. 
Let it be for ever remembered, that in this 
great work of humanity and justice the 
United States took the lead themselves. 
This government declared the slave-trade 
unlawful ; and in this declaration it has 
been followed by the great powers of 
Europe. This government declared the 
slave-trade to be piracy ; and in this, too, 
its example has been followed by other 
states. This government, this young gov- 
ernment, springing up in this new world 
within half a century, founded on the 
broadest principles of civil liberty, and 
sustained by the moral sense and intelli- 
gence of the people, has gone in advance 
of all other nations in summoning the civ- 
ilized world to a common effort to put 
down and destroy a nefarious traffic re- 
proachful to human nature. It has not 
deemed, and it does not deem, that it suffers 
any derogation from its character or its dig- 
nity, if, in seeking to fulfil this sacred duty, 
it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal 
terms of concert with other powers having 



LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



673 



in view the same praiseworthy object. Sueli 
were its sentiments when it entered into tlie 
solemn stipulations of the treaty of Client ; 
such were its sentiments when it requi'sted 
Enf^land to concur witli us in declaring; the 
slave-trade to be piracy ; and such are the 
sentiments which it has manifesteil on all 
other proper occasions. 

In conclusion, I have to repeat the ex- 
pression of the President's deep regret at the 
general tone and character of your letter, 
and to assure you of the Ejreat liap])iness it 
would have afforded him if, concurring wiili 
the judgment of the President and Senate, 
concurring with what appears to In' the 
general sense of the country, concurring in 
all the manifestations of enlightened public 
opinion in Europe, j'ou had seen nothing in 
the treaty of the 'Jth of August to wliich you 
could not give your cordial approbation. 
I have, &c. 

Daniel "Webster. 
Lewis Cass, Esq., &c , &c., &c. 



Mr. Webster to General Cass. 

Department of State, Washington, 
December 20, 1842. 

Sir, — Your letter of the 11th instant 
has been submitted to the President. He 
directs me to say, in replj', that he continues 
to regard your correspondence, of which 
this letter is part, as being quite irregular 
from the beginning. You had asked leave 
to retire from your mission ; the leave was 
granted by the President, with kind and 
friendly remarks upon the manner in which 
you had discharged its duties. Having 
asked for this honorable recall, which was 
promptly given, you afterward addressed 
to this department your letter of the 3d of 
October, which, however it may appear to 
you, the President cannot bu* consider as 
a remonstrance, a protest, against tiie treaty 
of the 9th of August; in other words, an at- 
tack upon his administration for the nego- 
tiation and conclusion of that treaty. He 
certainly was not prepared for this. It 
came upon him with no small surprise, and 
he still feels that you must have been, at 
the moment, under the influence of tempo- 
rary impressions, wliich he cannot but iiope 
have ere now worn away. 

A few remarks upon some of the points 
of your last letter must now close the cor- 
respondence. 

In the first place, you object to my liuv- 
ing called your letter of October 3d a " pro- 



test or remonstrance " against a transaction 
of the g(»viTiimi'iit, and uliserve that you 
must Iiave been unliap|>y in the mode of 
expressing yourself, if you were liable to 
tills cliargi'. 

What other construction your letter will 
bear, I cannot jiereeive. The transaction 
was Jin ishi' (I. No lettrr or remarks of yr)ur- 
self, or any oiu- else, (■(•old undo it, if desir- 
able. Your opinions were unsolicited If 
given as a citizen, then it was altogether 
unusual to address them to this di-]iartmcnt 
in an olheial di'spateh ; if as a jMililic func- 
tionary, the whole subject-niatiir was quite 
aside from the tluties of your ])articular 
station. In your letter you did not jiro- 
pose any thing to be done, but objected to 
what had been done. You did not suggest 
any method of remedying what you were 
jileased to consider a defect, but stated 
what you thought to be reasons for fearing 
its consequences. You declared that there 
liad been, in your opinion, an omission to 
assert American rights ; to whii'h omission 
you gave the department to understand 
that you would never have consented. 

In all this there is nothing but jtrotest 
and remonstrance ; and, though your letter 
be not formally entitled such, I cannot see 
that it can be construed, in ert'ect, as any 
thing else ; and I must continue to thinki 
therefore, that the terms use<l are entirely 
ajiiilicable ami jjroper. 

In the ne.xt ])lace, you say : " You give 
me to understand that the communications 
which have passed between us on this sub- 
ject are to be jiublished, and submitted to 
the great tribunal of public ojiinion." 

It would have been better if you had 
quoted my remark with entire correctness. 
What I said was, not that the conimnniea- 
tions which have passed between us are to 
be jiublished, or nniat be i»ublislied, but that 
" it may become necessary hereafter to ]iul>- 
lish your letter, in connection with other 
corresjiondcnce of the missi<m ; and, al- 
though it is not to be presumeil that you 
lookeil to such jniblieation, because such a 
jiresumption would im])Ute to you a claim 
to i>ut forth your private opinions ui>on the 
conduct of till- President juid Senate, in a 
transaction finishe<l aiul eiintluded, through 
the imposing form of a piiMic despatch ; 
yet, if jmblislied, it eamiot be foreseen how 
far Kngland miglit heriafier rely on your 
authority for a construciion favorable to 
her own ])ritiiisioiis, and inconsistent with 
tile interest and honor of tlu' I'liiled .States." 
In another part of your letter \oii ol>- 
43 



674 



APPENDIX. 



serve : " The publication of my letter, 
which is to produce this result, is to he 
the act of the government, and not my act. 
But if the President should think that the 
slightest injury to the public interest would 
ensue from the disclosure of my views, the 
letter may be buried in the archives of the 
department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
dered harmless." 

To this I have to remark, in the first 
place, that instances have occurred in other 
times, not unknown to you, in which highly 
important letters from ministers of the 
United States, in Europe, to their own gov- 
ernment, have found their way into the 
newspapers of Europe, when that govern- 
ment itself held it to be inconsistent with 
the interest of the United States to make 
such letters public. 

But it is hardly worth while to pursue a 
topic like this. 

You are pleased to ask : " Is it the dut}- 
of a diplomatic agent to receive all the 
communications of his government, and to 
carry into effect their instructions sub silen- 
tio, whatever may be his own sentiments in 
relation to them ; or is he not bound, as 
a faithful representative, to communicate 
freely, but respectfully, his own views, that 
these may be considered, and receive their 
due weight, in that particular case, or in 
other circumstances involving similar con- 
siderations ? It seems to me that the bare 
enunciation of the principle is all that is 
necessary for my justification. I am speak- 
ing now of the propriety of my action, not 
of the manner in which it was performed. 
I may have executed the task well or ill. 
I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, 
and urged them indiscreetly. All this I 
leave without remark. I am only endeavor- 
ing here to free myself from the serious 
charge which you bring against me. If 
I have misapprehended the duties of an 
American diplomatic agent upon this sub- 
ject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, 
by a timely resignation, from a position in 
which my own self-respect would not per- 
mit me to remain. And I may express the 
conviction, that there is no government, 
certainly none this side of Constantinople, 
which would not encourage rather than re- 
buke the free expression of the views of 
their representatives in foreign countries." 

I answer, certainly not. In the letter to 
which you were replying it was fully stated 
that, " in common with every other citizen 
of the republic, you have an unquestionable 
right to form opinions upon public transac- 



tions and the conduct of public men. But 
it will hardly be thought to be among either 
the duties or the privileges of a minister 
abroad to make formal remonstrances and 
protests against proceedings of tlie various 
branches of the government at home, upon 
subjects in relation to which he himself has 
not been charged with any duty, or par- 
taken any responsibility." 

You have not been requested to bestow 
your approbation upon the treaty, however 
gratifying it would have been to the Presi- 
dent to see that, in that respect, you united 
with other distinguished public agents 
abroad. Like all citizens of the republic, 
you are quite at liberty to exercise your 
own judgment upon that as upon other 
transactions. But neither your observa- 
tions nor this concession cover the case. 
They do not show, that, as a public minis- 
ter abroad, it is a part of your official func- 
tions, in a public despatch, to remonstrate 
against the conduct of the government at 
home in relation to a transaction in which 
you bore no part, and for which you were 
in no way answerable. The President and 
Senate must be permitted to judge for them- 
selves in a matter solely within their con- 
trol. Nor do I know that, in complaining 
of your protest against their proceedings in 
a case of this kind, any thing has been done 
to warrant, on your part, an invidious and 
unjust reference to Constantinople. If you 
could show, by the general practice of diplo- 
matic functionaries in the civilized part of 
the world, and more especially, if you could 
show by any precedent drawn from the con- 
duct of the many distinguished men who 
have represented the government of the 
United States abroad, that your letter of 
the 3d of October was, in its general object, 
tone, and character, within the usual limits 
of diplomatic correspondence, you may be 
quite assured that the President would not 
have recourse to the code of Turkey in 
order to find precedents the other wa}'. 

You complain that, in the letter from 
this department of the 14th of November, a 
statement contained in yours of the 3d of 
October is called a tissue of mistakes, and 
you attempt to show the impropriety of this 
appellation. Let the point be distinctly 
stated, and what you say in reply be then 
considered. 

In your letter of October 3d you remark, 
that " England then urged the United States 
to enter into a conventional arrangement, 
by which we might be pledged to concur 
with her in measures for the suppression of 



LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



G75 



the sLave-trade. Until then, wo hud exe- 
cuted our own laws in our own way ; hut, 
yielding to tliis application, and departing 
from our former principle of avoiding 
European combinations upon subjects not 
American, we stipulated in a solenm treaty 
that we would carry into effect our own 
laws, and fixed the minimum force we 
would employ for that purpose." 

The letter of this department of the 14th 
of November, having quoted this passage, 
proceeds to observe, tliat " the President 
cannot conceive how you should liave been 
led to adventure upon such a statement as 
tliis. It is but a tissue of mistakes. Eng- 
land did not urge tlie United States to enter 
into this conventional arrangement. The 
United States yielded to no application 
from P^ngland. The proposition for abolish- 
ing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, 
was an American proposition ; it originated 
with the executive government of the Unit- 
ed States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
responsibility. It stands upon it as its own 
mode of fulfilling its duties and accom- 
plishing its objects. Nor have the United 
States departed in tlie sliglitest degree from 
their former principles of avoiding Eu- 
ropean combinations upon subjects not 
American; because the abolition of tlie 
African slave-trade is an American subject 
as emphatically as it is a European subject, 
and, indeed, more so, inasnmch as tlie gov- 
ernment of the United States took tlie first 
great step in declaring that trade unlawful, 
and in attempting its extinction. The abo- 
lition of this traffic is an object of the liigli- 
est interest to the American peojile and 
the American government; and you seem 
strangely to have overlooked altogether 
tlie important fact, that nearly tiiirty years 
ago. l>y the treaty of Ghent, the United 
States bound themselves, by solemn com- 
pact with England, to continue tiieir efforts 
to promote its entire abolition ; both parties 
pledging themselves by tliat treaty to use 
tiieir best endeavors to accomplisli so de- 
sirable an object." 

Now, in answer to this, you observe in 
your last letter: " That the particular mode 
in wliicli tlie goveriunents sliould act in con- 
cert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was 
suggested by yourself, I never doubted. 
And if this is tlie construction I am to give 
to your denial of my correctness, there is 
no difficulty upon the subject. Tlie ques- 
tion between us is untouciied. All I said 
was, that England continued to prosecute 
the matter ; that she presented it for nego- 



tiation, and that we thereupon consented to 
its introduction. And if Lord A^ilbllrton 
did not come out witli instructions from his 
government to endeavor to I'fTect Kiime ar- 
rangi'iiieiit upon this siibjfct, the wtirld liiu 
strangely misunderstood one of the great 
objects of his mission, and I liave misun- 
derstood that paragraph in your first note, 
where you say that Lor<l .Aslibnrton comeg 
with full powiTs to negotiate ami settle all 
matters in discussion between England and 
the I'nited States. Hut the very fact of 
his coming here, and of his acceding to any 
stipulations respecting the slave-trade, is 
conclusive proof that his government were 
desirous to obtain the co-operation of the 
United States. I Imd supposed tliat our 
government would scarcely take the initia- 
tive in this matter, and urge it upon that of 
(ireat Britain, either in Washington or in 
London. If it did so, I can only express 
my regret, and confess that I have been led 
inadvertently info an error." 

It would apjiear from all this, that that 
which, in your first letter, api)eared as a 
direc-t statement of facts, of which you 
would naturally be presumed to liavt- had 
knowledge, sinks at last into inferences and 
conjectures. But, in attempting to escape 
from some of the mistakes of this tissue, 
you have fallen into others. "All I said 
was," you observe, " that England con- 
tinued to prosecute the matter; that she 
presented it for negotiation, and that we 
thereupon consented to its introduction " 
Now the English minister no more pre- 
sented this subject for negotiation thiin the 
government of the United Statis presented 
it. Nor can it be said that the United States 
consented to its introduction in any other 
sense than it may be said that the British 
minister consented to it. Will you be good 
enough to review the serii-s of your own 
assertions on this subject, and see wlu-ther 
they can jiossibly be regarded merely as a 
statement of your own inferences '. Your 
only authentic fact is a general one. that 
the British minister came clothed with full 
power to negotiate and si-ttle all matters in 
discussion. This, you say, is conclusive 
jiroof that his govcrnmciit was dc-irous to 
obtain the co-operation of tin- riiited Slates 
respecting the slavi'-traile; and then you 
infer that England continued to proseeute 
this matter, and jiresmtfd it for nrgoiin- 
tion, and that the United Slates consented 
to its introduction; ami give to this infer- 
ence the shape of a direct statement of a 
fact. 



676 



APPENDIX. 



You might have made the same remarks, 
and witli the same propriety, in relation to 
the subject of the " Creole," that of im- 
pressment, the extradition of fugitive crim- 
inals, or any thing else embraced in the 
treaty or in the correspondence, and then 
have converted these inferences of your 
own into so many facts. And it is upon 
conjectures like these, it is upon such in- 
ferences of your own, that you make the 
direct and formal statement in your letter 
of the 3d of October, that " England then 
urged the United States to enter into a 
conventional arrangement, by which we 
might be pledged to concur with her in 
measures for the suppression of the slave- 
trade. Until then, we had executed our 
own laws in our own way ; but, yielding to 
this application, and departing from our 
former principle of avoiding European 
combinations upon subjects not American, 
we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we 
would carry into effect our own laws, and 
fixed the minimum force we would employ 
for that purpose." 

The President was well warranted, there- 
fore, in requesting your serious reconsider- 
ation and review of that statement. 

Suppose your letter to go before the 
public unanswered and uncontradicted; 
suppose it to mingle itself with the general 
political history of the country, as an of- 
ficial letter among the archives of the De- 
partment of State, would not the general 
mass of readers understand you as reciting 
facts, rather than as drawing your own 
conclusions 7 as stating history, rather than 
as presenting an argument"? It is of an 
incorrect narrative that the President com- 
plains. It is that, in your hotel at Paris, 
you should undertake to write a history of 
a very delicate part of a negotiation car- 
ried on at Washington, with which you 
had nothing to do, and of the history of 
which you had no authentic information ; 
and which history, as you narrate it, re- 
flects not a little on the independence, 
wisdom, and public spirit of the adminis- 
tration. 

As of the history of this part of the ne- 
gotiation you were not well informed, the 
President cannot but think it would have 
been more just in you to have refrained 
from any attempt to give an account 
of it. 

You observe, further : " I never men- 
tioned in my despatch to you, nor in any 
manner whatever, that our government had 
conceded to that of England the right to 



search our ships. That idea, however, per- 
vades your letter, and is very apparent in 
that part of it which brings to my observa- 
tion the possible effect of my views upon 
the English government. But in this you 
do me, though I am sure unintentionally, 
great injustice. I repeatedly state that 
the recent treaty leaves the rights of the 
parties as it found them. My difficulty is 
not that we have made a positive conces- 
sion, but that we have acted unadvisedly 
in not making the abandonment of this 
pretension a previous condition to any con- 
ventional arrangement upon the general 
subject." 

On this part of your letter I must be al- 
lowed to make two remarks. 

The first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives 
no color or pretext whatever to any right of 
searching our shijis, a declaration against 
such a right would have been no more 
suitable to this treaty than a declaration 
against the right of sacking our towns in 
time of peace, or any other outrage. 

The rights of nierchant-vessels of the 
United States on the high seas, as under- 
stood by this government, have been clearly 
and fully asserted. As asserted, they will 
be maintained ; nor would a declaration 
such as you propose have increased either 
its resolution or its ability in this respect. 
The government of the United States relies 
on its own power, and on the effective sup- 
port of the people, to assert successfully 
all the rights of all its citizens, on the sea 
as well as on the land ; and it asks respect 
for these rights not as a boon or favor from 
any nation. The President's message, most 
certainly, is a clear declaration of what the 
country understands to be its rights, and 
his determination to maintain them ; not a 
mere promise to negotiate for these rights, 
or to endeavor to bring other powers into 
an acknowledgment of them, eitlier express 
or implied. Whereas, if I understand the 
meaning of this part of your letter, you 
would have advised that something should 
have been offered to England which she 
might have regarded as a benefit, but 
coupled with such a declaration or condi- 
tion as that, if she received the boon, it 
would have been a recognition by her of a 
claim which we make as matter of right. 
The President's view of the proper duty of 
the government has certainly been quite 
different. Being convinced that the doc- 
trine asserted by this government is the 
true doctrine of the law of nations, and 
feeling the competency of the government 



LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



GT7 



to uphold and enforce it for itself, he has 
not sout^ht, hut, on the contrary, lias sedu- 
lously avoided, to change this ground, and 
to place the just rights of the country upon 
the assent, express or implied, of any jiower 
whatever. 

The government thought no skilfully ex- 
torted promises necessary in any such cases. 
It asks no such pleilges of any nation. If 
its character for ability and readiness to 
protect and defend its own rights and dig- 
nit}- is not sufficient to preserve them from 
violation, no interpolation of promise to re- 
spect them, ingeniously woven into treaties, 
would be likely to afford such protection. 
And as our rights and liberties dejiend for 
existence upon our power to maintain them, 
general and vague protests are not likely 
to be more effectual than the Chinese 
method of defending their towns, by jiaint- 
iiig grotesque and hideous figures on the 
walls to fright away assailing foes. 

My other remark on this portion of your 
letter is this : — 

Suppose a declaration' to the effect that 
this treaty should not be considered as 
sacrificing any American rights had been 
appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, 
had been sent to Great Britain, as you pro- 
pose ; and suppose that that govermuent, 
with equal ingenuity, had appended an 
equivalent written declaration that it should 
not be consiilered as sacrificing any British 
right, how much more defined would have 
been the rights of either party, or how 
nmch clearer the meaning and interpreta- 
tion of the treaty, by these reservations on 
both sides 1 Or, in other words, what is 
the value of a protest on one side, balanced 
by an exactly equivalent protest on the 
other ? 

No nation is presumed to sacrifice its 
rights, or give up what justly belongs to it, 
unless it expressly stipulates that, for some 
good reason or adequate consideration, it 
does make such relinquishment ; and an 
unnecessary asseveration that it does not 
intend to sacrifice just rights would seem 
only calculated to invite aggression. Such 
proclamations would seem better devised 
for concealing weakness and apprehension, 
than for manifesting conscious strength 
and self-reliance, or for inspiring respect in 
others. 

Toward the end of your letter you are 



pleased to observe: "The rejection of a 
treaty, duly negotiated, is n seriou.-* ques- 
tion, to be avoided wlicnever it can be 
without too great a sacrifice. Though the 
national faith is nut actually conuuitted, 
still it is more or less engaged. And there 
were peculiar circumstances, growing out 
of long-standing ditliculties, which reiuK-red 
an amicable arrangement of the various 
matters in dispute with England a subject 
of great national interest. But the nego- 
tiation of a treaty is a far dilTeri'iit sub- 
ject. Topics are omitted or introduceil at 
the discretion of the negotiators, and they 
are resjionsible, to use the language of an 
eminent and able Senator, for ' what it 
contains and what it omits.' This treaty, 
in ni}- opinion, omits a most important and 
necessary stipulation ; and therefore, as it 
seems to me, its iu>gotiation, in this partic- 
ular, was unfortunate for the country." 

The President directs me to say, in reply 
to this, that in the treaty of Washington 
no topics were omitted, and no tojiics intro- 
duced, at the mere discretion of the nego- 
tiator; that the negotiation jtroceeded from 
step to step, and from day to d;iy, under 
his own immediate supervision and direc- 
tion ; that he himself takes the responsi- 
bility for what the treaty contains and 
what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the 
merits of the whole to the ju<lginent of the 
country. 

I now conclude this letter, and close this 
correspondence, by repeating once more 
the expression of the President's regret 
that you shotdd have connneiiced it by 
your letter of the :jd of ( tctober. 

It is painful to him to have with you 
any cause of difference. He has a just 
ajiprcciation of your character and your 
public services at home and abroail. He 
caimot but persuade himself that you must 
l)e aware yourself, liy this time, tiiat your 
letter of October was written under erro- 
neous impressions, and that there is no 
foundation for the opinions respecting the 
treaty which it expresses; and that it would 
have been far better on all airnunis if no 
such letter hail been writiiu. 
I have. «.<.!•. 

D.VMLL \Vi;ilSTKR. 

Lewis r.v.ss, F,.sQ , L'itt M iniittr »f the United 
Statti at I'aiu. 



678 



APPENDIX. 



THE HtJLSEMANN LETTER. 



[As the authorship of this remarkable 
paper has sometimes been imputed to 
another person, it may be proper to give 
tlie facts respecting its preparation, al- 
thougli they involve nothing more impor- 
tant than a question of literary interest. 

Mr. Webster, as has been stated, arrived 
at Marslifield on the 9th of October, 1850, 
where he remained for the space of two 
weeks. He brought with him the papers 
relating to this controversy with Austria. 
Before he left Washington, he gave to Mr. 
Hunter, a gentleman then and still filling 
an important post in the Department of 
State, verbal instructions concerning some 
of the points which would require to be 
touched in an answer to Mr. Hiilsemann's 
letter of September 30th, and requested Mr. 
Hunter to prepare a draft of such an an- 
swer. This was done, and Mr. Hunter's 
draft of an answer was forwarded to Mr. 
Webster at Marshfield. On the 20th of 
October, 1850, Mr. Webster, being far from 
well, addressed a note to Mr. Everett, i re- 
questing him also to prepare a draft of a 
reply to Mr. Hiilsemann, at the same time 
sending to Mr. Everett a copy of Mr. Hiil- 
semann's letter and of President Taylor's 
message to the Senate relating to Mr. 
Mann's mission to Hungary.'^ On the 21st 
Mr. Webster went to his farm in Franklin, 
New Hampshire, where he remained until 
the 4th of November. While there he re- 
ceived from Mr. Iwerett a draft of an an- 
swer to Mr. Hiilsemann, which was written 
by Mr Everett between the 21st and the 
24th of October. 

Soon after Mr. Webster's death, it was 
rumored that the real author of " the Hiil- 
semann letter" was Mr. Hunter, — a rumor 
for which Mr. Hunter himself was in no 
way responsible. At a later period, in the 
summer of 1853, the statement obtained 
currency in the newspapers that Mr. Ever- 
ett wrote this celebrated despatch, and 
many comments were made upon the sup- 
posed fact that Mr. Everett had claimed its 
authorship. Tiie facts are, that, while at 
Eranklin, Mr. Webster, with Mr. Hunter's 
and Mr. Everett's drafts both before him, 
went over the whole subject, making con- 
siderable changes in Mr. Everett's draft, 
striking out entire paragraphs with his pen, 
altering some phrases, and writing new 
paragraphs of his own, but adojiting Mr. 
Everett's draft as the basis of the official 

1 Mr. Everett had then resigned the Presi- 
dency of Harvard Colloge. 

- WlietliLM- Mr. Hunter's draft was also sent 
to Mr. Everett, I do not know. The internal 
evidence woidd seem to indicate that it was; 
but the fact is not material. 



paper; a purpose which he expressed to 
Mr. Everett on his return to Boston toward 
Washington. Suljseqiiently, when he had 
arrived in Washington, Mr. Webster caused 
a third draft to be made, in the State De- 
partment, from Mr. Everett's paper and his 
own additions and alterations. On this 
third draft he made still other changes and 
additions, and, when the whole was com- 
pleted to his own satisfaction, the official 
letter was drawn out by a clerk, was sul;- 
mitted to the President, and, being signed 
by Mr. Webster, was sent to Mr. Hiilse- 
mann.' 

There are, no doubt, passages and ex- 
pressions in this letter wluch are in a tone 
not usual with Mr. Webster in his diplo- 
matic papers. How he himself regarded 
the criticisms that might be made upon it 
may be seen from the following note : — 

[to MR. TICKNOR.] 

" Washington, January 16, 1S51. 

"My dear Sir, — If you say that my 
Hiilsemann letter is boastful and rough, I 
shall own the soft impeachment. My ex- 
cuse is twofold : 1. I thought it well enough 
to speak out, and tell the people of Europe 
who and what we are, and awaken them to 
a just sense of the unparalleled growth of 
tliis country. 2. I wished to write a paper 
which should touch the national pride, and 
make a man feel shffpisli and look sillij who 
should speak of disunion. It is curious 

1 I have seen, I believe, all the documents 
in relation to this matter; viz. Mr. Hunter's 
draft, Mr. Everett's (in his handwi-iting, with 
Mr. Webster's erasures), the third draft, made 
at the department under Mr. Webster's direc- 
tions, and the original added paragraphs, writ- 
ten by Mr. Webster with his own hand. To 
tliose who are curious about the question of 
milJiorsJiip, it is needful only to say that Mr. 
Webster adopted Mr. Everett's draft as the basis 
of the official letter, but that the official letter 
is a much more vigorous, expanded, and com- 
jilete production than Mr. Everett's draft. It is 
described in a note written by INIr. Everett to 
one of the literary executors, in 1853, as follows : 
'•It can be stated truly that what Mr. Webster 
did himself to tlie letter was very considerable; 
and that he added one half in bulk to the origi- 
nal draft; and that his ad<litions were of the 
most significant character. It was very care- 
fully elaborated in the department by him, till 
he was authorized to speak of it as he did at the 
Kossuth dinner. ..." 

This refers to what Mr. Webster said in his 
speech at the Kossuth banquet, in Washington, 
January 7, 1852 : — 

"May I be so egotistical as to say that I 
have nothing new to say on the subject of Hun- 
gar}' '? Gentlemen, in the autumn of the j'ear 



THE HULSEMANN LETTER. 



G79 



enouph, but it is certain, that Mr. Mann's 
private instructions were seen, souieiiow, 
by ychwarzenborg. 

" Yours always truly, 

"Daniel Webster." i] 

Department of State, Washington, 
December 21, 1850. 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of 
the United States, had the honor to re- 
ceive, some time ago, the note of Mr. 
Hiilsemann, Charge d'Affaircs of his Ma- 
jesty, the P^mperor of Austria, of the 30th 
of September. Causes, not arising from 
any want of personal regard for Mr. Iliilse- 
niaini, or of proper respect for his govern- 
ment, have delayed an answer until the 
present moment. Having submitted Mr. 
Iliilsomann's letter to tlie President, the 
undersigned is now directed by him to re- 
turn the following reply. 

The objects of Mr. Hiilsemann's note arc, 
first, to protest, by order of his govern- 
ment, against the steps taken by the late 
President of the United States to ascer- 
tain the progress and {)robable result of 
the revolutionary movements in Hungary ; 
and, secondly, to complain of some expres- 
sions in the instructions of the late Secre- 
tary of State to Mr. A. Dudley Mann, a 
confidential agent of the United States, as 
communicated by President Taylor to the 
Senate on the 28th of ISIarch last. 

The principal ground of protest is 
founded on the idea, or in the allegation, 
that the government of the United States, 
by the mission of Mr. j\Iann and his in- 
structions, has interfered in the domestic 
affairs of Austria in a manner imjust or 
disrespectful toward that power. The 
President's message was a communication 
made by him to the Senate, transmitting a 
correspondence between tlie executive gov- 
ernment and a confidential agent of its 
own. This would seem to be itself a do- 
mestic transaction, a mere instance of in- 

before last, out of health, and retired to my 
patt-riial Imnie among the mountains of New 
Ilampsliire, I was, by reason of my physit'al 
condition, confined to my liouse; but I was 
among tlie mountains, whose native air I was 
bound to inspire. Nothing sahited my senses, 
nothing saluted my mind, or my sentiments, but 
freedom, full and entire; and there, gentlemen, 
near the graves of my ancestors, I wrote a let- 
ter, which most of yoii have seen, addressed to 
the Austrian cluin/r f/'ofiilres. I can say nolli- 
ing of the abilitv displayed in tliat letter, but, 
as to its |irinciples, while the sun and moon en- 
dure. I stand bv them." 

1 From Hon". ( ".eorge T. Curtis's Life of Daniel 
Webster, Vol. IL pp. 535-537. 



tercourse between the President and the 
Senate, in tlie manner wliich is usual and 
indispensable in conimmiications between 
tiie different brandies of tiie government. 
It was not addressed either to Austria or 
Htmgary ; nor was it a i)uhlic manifesto, 
to which any foreign slate was called on to 
reply. It was an account of its transac- 
tions communicated by tiie executive gov- 
ernment to tiie Senate, at the request of 
that body; made iiublic, indeed, but made 
public only because such is the common 
and usual course of proceeding. It may 
be regarded as somewhat strangi', there- 
fore, that the Austrian Cabinet diil not 
perceive that, by the instructions given to 
Mr. Hiilsemann, it was itself interfering 
witli the domestic concerns of a foreign 
state, the very thing which is tlie ground 
of its complaint against the United States. 
This (kpartnunt lias, on former occa- 
sions, informed the ministers of foreign 
powers, that a communication from the 
President to either house of Congress is 
regarded as a domestic communication, of 
which, ordinarily, no foreign state lias cog- 
nizance ; and in more recent instances, the 
great inconvenience of making sucii com- 
munications the subject of diplomatic cor- 
respondence and discussiim has been fully 
shown. If it had been the pleasure of his 
Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, during 
the struggles in Hungary, to have admon- 
ished the provisional government or the 
people of that country against involving 
themselves in disaster, by following the 
evil and dangerous example of the United 
States of America in making efforts for the 
establishment of iinkpendeiit governments, 
such an aihnonition from that sovereign 
to his Hungarian subjects would not have 
originated here a diplomatic corresi)()nd- 
ence. The J'resi<lent might, i)erhai)s, on 
this ground, have declined to direct any 
particular reply to Mr. Hiilsemann's note; 
but out of proper respect for the Austrian 
government, it has been thought belter to 
answer that note at length ; and the more 
esjiecially, as the occasion is not unfavor- 
able for the expression of the general sen- 
timents of the government of the I nited 
States upon the topics which that note 
discusses. 

A leading subject in Mr. Hiilsemann's 
note is that of the correspondence bo- 
twoeii Mr. Hiilsemann and the jiredecessor 
of the undersigned, in wiiicli .Mr. Clayton, 
by direction of the President, infornuil Mr. 
Hiilsemann " that Mr. .Manns mission had 



680 



APPENDIX. 



no other object in view than to obtain re- 
liable information as to the true state of 
affairs in Hungary, by personal observa- 
tion." Mr. Hiilsemann remarks, that " this 
explanation can hardly be admitted, for it 
says very little as to the cause of the 
anxiety which was felt to ascertain the 
chances of the revolutionists." As this, 
however, is the only purpose which can, 
with any appearance of truth, be attrib- 
uted to the agency ; as nothing whatever 
is alleged by Mr. Hiilsemann to have been 
either done or said by the agent inconsist- 
ent with sucli an object, the imdersigued 
conceives that Mr. Clayton's explanation 
ought to be deemed, not only admissible, 
but quite satisfactory. 

Mr. Hiilsemann states, in the course of 
his note, that liis instructions to address 
his present communication to Mr. Clayton 
reached Washington about tlie time of the 
lamented death of the late President, and 
that he delayed from a sense of propriety 
the execution of his task until the new ad- 
ministration should be fully organized ; " a 
delay which he now rejoices at, as it has 
given him tlie opportunity of ascertaining 
from the new President himself, on the oc- 
casion of the reception of the diplomatic 
corps, that the fundamental policy of the 
United States, so frequently proclaimed, 
would guide the relations of the American 
government with other powers." Mr. Hiilse- 
mann also observes, that it is in his power 
to assure the undersigned " that the Im- 
perial government is disposed to cultivate 
relations of friendship and good under- 
standing witli the United States." 

The President receives this assurance of 
the disposition of the Imperial government 
with great satisfaction ; and, in considera- 
tion of the friendly relations of the two 
governments thus mutually recognized, and 
of the peculiar nature of the incidents by 
which their good understanding is supposed 
by Mr. Hiilsemann to have been for a mo- 
ment disturbed or endangered, the Presi- 
dent regrets that Mr. Hiilsemann did not 
feel himself at liberty wholly to forbear 
from the execution of instructions, which 
were of course transmitted from Vienna 
without any foresigiit of the state of things 
under which they would reach Washing- 
ton. If Mr. Hiilsemann saw, in the ad- 
dress of tlie President to tlie diplon)atic 
corps, satisfactory pledges of tlie senti- 
ments and the policy of this government 
in regard to neutral riglits and neutral 
duties, it might, perhaps, have been bet- 



ter not to bring on a discussion of past 
transactions. But the undersigned readily 
admits that this was a question fit only 
for the consideration and decision of Mr. 
Hiilsemann himself ; and although tlie 
President does not see that any good pur- 
pose can be answered by reopening the in- 
quiry into the propriety of the steps taken 
by President Taylor to ascertain the prob- 
able issue of the late civil war in Hungary, 
justice to his memory requires the under- 
signed briefly to restate the history of those 
steps, and to show tlieir consistency with 
tlie neutral policy whicli has invariably 
guided the government of the United States 
in its foreign relations, as well as with the 
established and well-settled principles of 
national intercourse, and the doctrines of 
public law. 

The undersigned will first observe, that 
the President is persuaded his Majesty, the 
Emperor of Austria, does not tliink that 
the government of the United States ought 
to view with unconcern the extraordinary 
events which have occurred, not only in 
his dominions, but in many other parts of 
Europe, since February, 1848. The gov- 
ernment and people of tlie United States, 
like other intelligent governments and com- 
munities, take a lively interest in the move- 
ments and the events of this remarkable 
age, in whatever part of the world they 
may be exhibited. But the interest taken 
by the United States in those events has 
not proceeded from any disposition to de- 
part from that neutrality toward foreign 
powers, which is among tlie deepest prin- 
ciples and the most clierislied traditions of 
the political history of the Union. It has 
been the necessary effect of tlie unexam- 
pled character of tiie events themselves, 
which could not fail to arrest the attention 
of the contemporary world, as they will 
doubtless fill a memoral)le page in history. 

But the undersigned goes further, and 
freely admits that, in proportion as these 
extraordinary events appeared to have tlieir 
origin in those great ideas of responsible 
and popular government, on which the 
American constitutions themselves are 
wholly founded, tliey could not but com- 
mand tlie warm sympatliy of the people 
of this country. Well-known circum- 
stances in their history, indeed their whole 
liistory, have made them tlie representa- 
tives of purely popular principles of gov- 
ernment. In this light they now stand be- 
fore the world. They could not, if they 
would, conceal their character, their condi- 



THE HULSEMANN LETTER. 



G81 



tion, or their destiny. They could not, if 
they so desired, shut out from the view of 
manlcind the causes which liave jjlaced 
tlieni, in so sliort a national career, in the 
station which tliey now hold among the 
civilized states of the world. They could 
not, if they desired it, suppress either tlie 
thoughts or the hopes which arise in men's 
minds, in otlier countries, from contem- 
plating their successful exani])le of free 
government. Tliat very intelligent and dis- 
tinguished personage, the Emperor .Joseph 
the Second, was among the first to discern 
this necessary consequence of the Ameri- 
can Revolution on the sentiments and 
opinions of tlie people of Europe. In a 
letter to his minister in the Netherlands in 
1787, he observes, that " it is remarkable 
that France, by the assistance which she 
afforded to the Americans, gave birth to 
reflections on freedom." Tliis fact, wliich 
the sagacity of that monarcli perceived at 
so early a day, is now known and admitted 
by intelligent powers all over the world. 
'iVue, indeed, it is, that tlie prevalence on 
the other continent of sentiments favorable 
to republican liberty is the result of the 
reaction of America iipon Europe ; and 
the source and centre of this reaction has 
doubtless been, and now is, in these United 
States. 

The position thus belonging to the United 
States is a fact as inseparable from their 
liistory, their constitutional organization, 
and tlieir character, as tlie opposite po.-iilion 
of the powers composing the European al- 
liance is from the liistory and constitutional 
organization of the government of those 
powers. Tlie sovereigns who form that 
alliance have not unfrequently felt it their 
riglit to interfere with the political move- 
ments of foreign states; and have, in tlieir 
manifestoes and declarations, denounced the 
popular ideas of the age in terms so coni- 
preiiensive as of necessity to include tlie 
United States, and their forms of govern- 
ment. It is well known that one of the 
leading principles announced by the allied 
sovereigns, after the restoration of tiie 
Bourbons, is, that all popular or constitu- 
tional rights are liolden no otherwise than 
as grants and indulgences from crowned 
heads. " Useful and necessary clianges in 
legislation and administration," says the 
Laybach Circular of May, 1H21, "ought 
only to emanate from the free will and in- 
telligent conviction of those whom God 
has rendered responsible for power; all 
that deviates from this line necessarily leads 



to disorder, commotions, and evils far more 
insufferable than those which they jjretend 
to remedy." And his late Austrian Ma- 
jesty, Francis the First, is reported to have 
declared, in an address to the Hungarian 
Diet, in 18L'(), that " tlie whole worbl had 
become foolish, and, leaving their ancient 
laws, were in search of inuiginary constitu- 
tions " These declarations amount to noth- 
ing U'ss than a denial of the lawfuhu'.-s of 
the origin of the government of the United 
States, since it is certain that that govern- 
ment was established in consequence of a 
change which did not proceed from thrones, 
or the jK'rmissit)n of crowned heads. Hut 
the government of the United States lieard 
these denunciations of its fnndament:il prin- 
ciples without remonstrance, or tlu' distiirl)- 
ance of its equanimity. Tiiis was thirty 
years ago. 

The power of tins n])ublic, at the pres- 
ent moment, is spread over a ri'gion one of 
the richest and most fertile on the globe, 
and of an extent in comjiarison with which 
the possessions of the house of I la])sburg are 
but as a patch on the earth's surface. Its 
jiopulation, already twenty-five millions, 
will exceed that of the Austrian empire 
within the period during which it may be 
hoped that Mr. Hiilsemann may yet remain 
in the honorable discliarge of his <luties to 
his government. Its navigation and com- 
merce are hardly exceeded by the oldest 
and most commercial nations ; its maritime 
means and its niarilinie jiower may be seen 
by Austria herself, in all seas where she 
has ports, as well as they may be seen, 
also, in all other quarters of the globe. 
Life, liberty, property, and all pi-rsonal 
rights, are amply secured to all citizens, and 
protected by just and stable laws ; and 
credit, public and private, is as well estab- 
lished as in any government of Continental 
Europe; and the country, in all its interests 
and concerns, partakes most largely in all 
the improvements and |»rogress whieli dis- 
tinguish the age. Certainly, the United 
States may be parthnied, even by those 
who j)rofess adherence to the principles of 
absolute govermneiit, if they entertain an 
ardent atfection for those popular forms of 
political organization which have so rapidly 
advanced their own prosfterity and happi- 
ness, and enaltle<l them, in so hhorl a period, 
to bring their country, and the hemisphere 
to which it belongs, to the notice and re- 
spectful regarti, not to say the ailniiration, 
of the civilized world. Nevertheli'ss, the 
United States have abstained, at all times, 



682 



APPENDIX. 



from acts of interference with tlie political 
clianges of Europe. They cannot, how- 
ever, fail to cherish always a lively interest 
in the fortunes of nations struggling for 
institutions like their own. But this sym- 
pathy, so far from being necessarily a hos- 
tile feeling toward any of the parties to 
these great national struggles, is quite con- 
sistent with amicable relations with them 
all. The Hungarian people are three or 
four times as numerous as the inhabitants 
of these United States were wlien the Amer- 
ican Revolution broke out. They possess, 
in a distinct language, and in other respects, 
important elements of a separate nation- 
ality, which the Anglo-Saxon race in this 
country did not possess ; and if the United 
States wish success to countries contending 
for popular constitutions and national in- 
dependence, it is only because they regard 
sucli constitutions and such national inde- 
pendence, not as imaginary, but as real 
blessings. They claim no right, however, 
to take part in the struggles of foreign 
powers in order to promote these ends. It 
is only in defence of his own government, 
and its principles and character, that the 
undersigned has now expressed himself on 
tliis subject. But when the people of the 
United States behold the people of foreign 
countries, without any such interference, 
spontaneously moving toward the adoption 
of institutions like their own, it surely can- 
not be expected of them to remain wholly 
indifferent spectators. 

In regard to the recent very important 
occurrences in the Austrian empire, the un- 
dersigned freely admits the difficulty which 
exists in this country, and is alluded to by 
Mr. Hiilsemann, of obtaining accurate in- 
formation. But this difficulty is by no 
means to be ascribed to what Mr. Hiilse- 
mann calls, with little justice, as it seems 
to the undersigned, " the mendacious rumors 
propagated by the American press." For 
information on this subject, and others of 
the same kind, the American press is, of 
necessity, almost wholly dependent upon 
that of Europe ; and if '" mendacious ru- 
mors " respecting Austrian and Hungarian 
affairs liave been anywhere propagated, 
that propagation of falselioods has been 
most prolific on the European continent, 
and in countries immediately bordering on 
the Austrian empire. But, wiierever these 
errors may have originated, tliey certainly 
justified the late President in seeking true 
information through authentic channels. 

His attention was first particularly drawn 



to the state of things in Hungary by the 
correspondence of Mr. Stiles, Charge' d'Af- 
faires of the United States at Vienna. In 
the autumn of 1848, an application was 
made to this gentleman, on behalf of Mr. 
Kossuth, formerly Minister of Finance for 
the Kingdom of Hungary by Imperial ap- 
pointment, but, at the time the application 
was made, chief of the revolutionary gov- 
ernment. The object of this application 
was to obtain the good offices of Mr. Stiles 
with the Imperial government, witli a view 
to the suspension of hostilities. Tliis appli- 
cation became the sul)jcct of a conference 
between Prince Schwarzenberg, the Impe- 
rial Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. 
Stiles. The Prince conmicnded the consid- 
erateness and propriety with which Mr. 
Stiles had acted ; and, so far from disap- 
proving his interference, advised him, in 
case he received a furtlier communication 
from the revolutionary government in Hun- 
gary, to have an interview with Prince 
Windischgratz, who was charged by the 
Emperor with the proceedings determined 
on in relation to that kingdom. A week 
after these occurrences, Mr. Stiles received, 
through a secret cliannel, a communication 
signed by L.' Kossuth, President of the Com- 
mittee of Defence, and countersigned by 
Francis Pulszky, Secretary of State. On 
the receipt of this communication, Mr. Stiles 
had an interview with Prince Windisch- 
gratz, " who received him with the utmost 
kindness, and thanked liim for his efforts 
toward reconciling the existing diflSculties." 
Such were the incidents which first drew 
the attention of the government of the 
United States particularly to the aft'airs of 
Hungary, and the conduct of Mr. Stiles, 
thougli acting without instructions in a mat- 
ter of much delicacy, having been viewed 
with satisfaction by tlie Imperial govern- 
ment, was approved by that of the United 
States. 

In the course of the year 1848, and in 
the early part of 1849, a considerable num- 
ber of Hungarians came to the United 
States. Among them were individuals rep- 
resenting themselves to be in the confidence 
of the revolutionary government, and by 
these persons the President was strongly 
urged to recognize tlie existence of that 
government. In these applications, and in 
the manner in whicli they were viewed by 
the President, there was nothing unusual ; 
still less was there any thing unautliorized 
by the law of nations. It is tlie right of 
every independent state to enter into friend- 



THE HULSEMAXN LETTER. 



C83 



Iv relations with every other independent 
state. Of course, questions of prudence 
naturally arise in reference to new states, 
brought by successful revolutions into the 
faniih' of nations ; but it is not to be re- 
quired of neutral power* that they should 
await the recognition of the now {;overn- 
nient by the parent state. No principle of 
public law has been more frequently acted 
upon, within the last thirty years, by the 
great powers of the world, than this. Within 
that period, eight or ten new states have 
established independent governments, with- 
in the limits of the colonial ilominions of 
Spain, on this continent ; and in Europe 
the same thing has been done by Belgium 
and Greece. The existence of all these 
governments was recognized by some of 
the leading powers of Europe, as well as by 
the United States, before it was acknowl- 
edged by the states from which they had 
separated themselves. If, therefore, the 
United States had gone so far as formally 
to acknowledge the independence of Hun- 
gary, although, as the result has proved, it 
would have been a precipitate step, and one 
from which no benefit would have res\ilted 
to either party ; it would not, nevertheless, 
have been an act against the law of nations, 
provided they took no part in her contest 
with Austria. But the United States did 
no such thing. Not only did they not yield 
to Hungary any actual countenance or suc- 
cor, not onlj' did they not show their ships 
of war in the Adriatic with any menacing 
or hostile aspect, but they studiously ab- 
stained from every thing which had not 
been done in other cases in times past, and 
contented themselves with instituting an 
inquiry into the fruth and reality of alleged 
political occurrences. Mr. Hiilscinanii incor- 
rectly states, unintentionally certainly, the 
nature of the mission of this agent, when 
he says that "a United States agent had 
been despatched t« Vienna with orders to 
watch for a favorable moment to recognize 
the Hungarian republic, and to conclude a 
treaty of commerce with the same." Tliis, 
indeed, would have been a lawful object, 
but Mr. Mann's errand was, in the first in- 
stance, purely one of inquiry. He had jio 
power to act, unless he had first come to 
the conviction that a firm and stable Hun- 
garian government existed. "The princi- 
pal object the President has in view," ac- 
cording to his instructions, "is to obtain 
minute and reliable information in regard 
to Hungary, in connection with the affairs 
of adjoining countries, the probable issue 



of the present revolutionary movcimnii, 
and the chances we may havi- of fDrniing 
commercial arrangements witli tliat power 
favorable to the Uniteil State*." Again, 
in the same paper, it i« said: "Theobji-ct 
of the President is to obtain infurmation in 
regard to Hungary, and her resources and 
prospects, witli a view to an early recogni- 
tion of her indejienden< e and the fonnution 
of commercial relations witli her." It was 
only in the event that the new government 
should appear, in the ojiinion of the agent, 
to be firm and stable, that the Pn-sident 
proposed to recommend its recognition. 

Mr. Hiilsemann, in qualifying these steps 
of President Taylor with the epithet of 
" hostile," seems to take for granted that 
the inquiry could, in the exju-ctation of the 
President, have but one result, and that 
favorable to Hungary. H tlii.-* were so, it 
would not change the case. But the Ameri- 
can government sought for nothing but 
truth ; it desired to learn the facts through 
a reliable channel. It so happened, in the 
chances and vicissitudes of human affairs, 
that the result was adverse to the Hunga- 
rian revolution. The American agent, as 
was stated in his instructicuis to be not un- 
likely, found the condition of Hungarian 
affairs less prosperous than it had been, or 
had been l)elieved to be. He did not enter 
Hungary, nor hold any direct communica- 
tion with her revolutionary leaders. He 
reported against the recognition of her in- 
dependence, because he found siie hatl been 
unable' to set up a firm and stable govern- 
ment. He carefully forbore, as his instruc- 
tions required, to give publicity to his mis- 
sion, and the undersigned supposes that the 
Austrian government first learned its ex- 
istence from the commimications of the 
President to the Senate. 

Mr. Hiilsemann will observe from this 
statement, that Mr. .Mann's missicm was 
wholly unobjectioiuible, and .•.tricily within 
the rule of the law of nations antl the duty 
of the United States as a neutral power. 
He will accordingly feel how little fomula- 
ti(m there is for his remark, that " tiiose 
who did not hesitate to assume the responsi- 
bilitv of sending Mr. l>uil!ey .Mann on such 
an errand should, iiidei>endeiit of considera- 
tions of propriety, have borne in mind that 
they were exposing their emissary to \>c 
treated as a spy." A spy is a person sent 
by one belligerent to gain swret inforiini- 
tion of the forces antl defences of the other, 
to be used for hostile juirposes. According 
to practice, he may use dei-eplion, under 



684 



APPENDIX. 



the penalty of being lawfully hanged if de- 
tected. To give this odious name and char- 
acter to a confidential agent of a neutral 
power, bearing the commission of his coun- 
try, and sent for a purpose fully warranted 
by the law of nations, is not only to abuse 
language, but also to confound all just 
ideas, and to announce the wildest and 
most extravagant notions, such as certainly 
were not to have been expected in a grave 
diplomatic paper; and the President directs 
the undersigned to say to Mr. Hiilsemann, 
that the American government would re- 
gard such an imputation upon it by the 
Cabinet of Austria as that it employs spies, 
and that in a quarrel none of its own, as 
distinctly offensive, if it did not presume, 
as it is willing to presume, that the word 
used in the original German was not of 
equivalent meaning with " spy " in the Eng- 
lish language, or that in some other way 
the employment of such an opprobrious 
term may be explained. Had the Imperial 
government of Austria subjected Mr. Mann 
to the treatment of a spy, it would have 
placed itself without the pale of civilized 
nations ; and the Cabinet of Vienna may 
be assured, that if it had carried, or at- 
tempted to carry, any such lawless purpose 
into effect, in tiie case of an authorized 
agent of this government, the spirit of the 
people of this country would have demand- 
ed immediate hostilities to be waged by the 
utmost exertion of the power of the repub- 
lic, military and naval. 

Mr. Hiilsemann proceeds to remark, that 
" this extremely' painful incident, therefore, 
might have been passed over, without any 
Avritten evidence being left on our part in 
the archives of the United States, had not 
General Taylor thought proper to revive 
the whole subject by communicating to the 
Senate, in his message of the 18th [28th] of 
last March, the instructions with which 
Mr. Mann had been furnislied on the occa- 
sion of his mission to Vienna. The pub- 
licity which has been given to that docu- 
ment has placed the Imperial government 
luider the necessity of entering a formal 
protest, through its official representative, 
against the proceedings of the American 
government, lest that government should 
construe our silence into approbation, or 
toleration even, of the principles which ap- 
pear to have guided its action and the 
means it has adopted." The undersigned 
reasserts to Mr. Hiilsemaim, and to the 
Cabinet of Vienna, and in the presence of 
tiie world, that the steps taken by Presi- 



dent Taylor, now protested against by the 
Austrian government, were warranted by 
the law of nations and agreeable to the 
usages of civilized states. With respect to 
the communication of Mr. Mann's instruc- 
tions to the Senate, and the language in 
which they are couched, it has already 
been said, and Mr. Hiilsemann nmst feel 
the justice of the remark, that these are 
domestic affairs, in reference to which the 
government of the United States cannot 
admit the slightest responsihility to the 
government of his Imperial ^Majesty. No 
state, deserving the appellation of mde- 
pendent, can permit the language in which 
it may instruct its own officers in the dis- 
charge of their duties to itself to be called 
in question under any pretext by a foreign 
power. 

But even if this were not so, Mr. Hiil- 
semann is in an error in stating that the 
Austrian government is called an " iron 
rule " in Mr. Mann's instructions. That 
phrase is not found in the paper; and in 
respect to the honorary epithet bestowed 
in Mr. Mann's instructions on the late chief 
of the revolutionary government of Hun- 
gary, Mr. Hiilsemann will bear in mind 
that the government of the United States 
cannot justly be expected, in a confidential 
communication to its own agent, to with- 
hold from an individual an epithet of dis- 
tinction of which a great part of tiie world 
thinks him worthy, merely on the ground 
that his own government regards him as a 
rebel. At an early stage of the American 
Eevolution, while Washington was consid- 
ered by the English government as a rebel 
chief, he was regarded on the Continent of 
Europe as an illustrious hero. But the 
undersigned will take the liberty of bring- 
ing the Cabinet of Vienna into the presence 
of its own predecessors, and of citing for 
its consideration the conduct of the Impe- 
rial government itself. In the year 1777 the 
war of the American Revolution was raging 
all over tliese United States. England 
was prosecuting tiiat war with a most reso- 
lute determination, and by tl:e exertion of 
all her military means to the fullest extent. 
Germany was at tliat time at peace with 
England ; and yet an agent of that Con- j 
gress, which was looked upon by England 
in no other light than that of a body in 
open rebellion, was not only received with 
great respect by the ambassador of the 
Empress Queen at Paris, and by the minis- 
ter of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (who 
afterwards mounted the Imperial throne), 



THE IIULSEMANN LETTER. 



G85 



but resided in Vienna for a considerable 
time; not, indeed, otHcially aclinowk'dged, 
but treated witli courtesy and respect ; and 
the lOniperor suffered himself to be per- 
suaded by that agent to exert himself to 
prevent tlie Ciernian powers from furnish- 
ing troops to England to enable her to sup- 
press the rebellion in America. Neitlicr 
Mr. Iliilseniann nor the Cabinet of Vienna, 
it is presumed, will undertake to say that 
any thing said or done by this government 
in regard to the recent war between Aus- 
tria and Hungary is not borne out, and 
much more than borne out, by this exam- 
ple of the Imperial Court. It is believed 
that the Phniieror Josej)!! the Second habit- 
ually spoke in terms of respect and admira- 
tion of tlie character of Washington, as he 
is known to have done of that of Franklin; 
and he deemed it no infraction of neutrality 
to inform himself of the progress of the 
revolutionary struggle in America, or to 
express his deep sense of the merits and 
the talents of those illustrious men who 
were then leading their country to inde- 
pendence and renown. The undersigned 
may add, that in 1781 the courts of Russia 
and Austria proposed a diplomatic congress 
of the belligerent powers, to which the 
connnissioners of the United States should 
be admitted. 

Mr. Hiilsemann thinks that in Mr. Mann's 
instructions improper expressions are intro- 
duced in regard to Russia; but the under- 
signed has no reason to suppose tliat Russia 
herself is of that opinion. The only obser- 
vation made in those instructions about 
Russia is, that she " has chosen to assume 
an attitude of interference, and her im- 
mense jireparations for invading and redu- 
cing the Hungarians to the rule of Austria, 
from which they desire to be released, gave 
so serious a character to the contest as to 
awaken the most painful solicitude in the 
minds of Americans." The undersigned 
cannot but consider the Austrian Cabinet 
as unnecessarily susceptible in looking 
upon language like this as a " hostile dem- 
onstration." If we remember that it was 
addressed by the government to its own 
agent, and has received i)ublicity only 
through a connnunication from one deiiart- 
ment of the American government to an- 
other, the language quoted must be deemed 
moderate and inoffensive. The comity of 
nations would hardly forbid its being ad- 
dressed to the two imperial powers tiiem- 
selves. It is scarcely necessary for the 
undersigned to say, that the relations of 



the United States with Russia have always 
been of tlie most frii'udly kin<l, and have 
never been deemed by either party to re- 
quire any compromise of their jieculiar 
views upon subjects of donu'slic or foreign 
])olity, or the true origin of goverinnents. 
At any rate, the fact that Austria, in her 
contest with Hungary, had an intimate and 
faithful ally in Russia, cannot alter the 
real mitiire of the question hetwei'ii Aus- 
tria and Hungary, nor in any way alTect 
the neutral rights and duties of the goviTU- 
ment of the United Stales, or the jusiiliable 
sympathies of the American i)eople. It is, 
indeed, easy to conceive, that favor towanl 
struggling lliuigary would be not dimin- 
ished, but increased, when it was seen that 
tlie arm of Austria was strengthened and 
upheld by a power whose assistance threat- 
ened to be, and which in the enil proved 
to be, overwhelmingly destructive of all 
her hopes. 

Toward the conclusion of his note Mr. 
Hiilsemann remarks, that "if the govern- 
ment of the United States were to think it 
proper to take an indirect part in the polit- 
ical movements of lOurope, American pol- 
icy woidd be exposed to acts of retaliation, 
and to certain inconveniences which would 
not fail to alfect the commerce and indus- 
try of the two hemisiiheres." As to this 
possible fortune, this hypothetical retalia- 
tion, the government and people of the 
United States are quite willing to take 
their chances and abide their destiny. 
Taking neither a direct nor an indirect part 
in the domestic or intestine nu)vements of 
Europe, they have no fear of events of the 
nature alluded to by Mr. Hiilsemann. It 
would be idle now to discuss with .Mr. 
Hiilsemaim those acts of retaliation which 
he imagines may possibly take place at sonu' 
indefinite time hereafter. Tliose questions 
will be discussed when they arise; and Mr. 
Hiilsemann and the Cabinet at Vienna may 
rest assureil, that, in the mean time, while 
performing with strict aiul exact fidelity 
all their neutral duties, nothing will deter 
either tlie government or the iieopk- of the 
United States from exercising, at their own 
discretion, the rights heloiiging to llu-m as 
an independiiit naliuii, and of forming and 
expressing their own opinions, freely an<I 
at all times, upim the great political evi-nts 
which may transiiire among the civilized 
nations of the earth. Their own institu- 
tions stand upon the broailest jirineiides of 
civil liberty ; and believing those j>rinci- 
pies and the fundamental laws in which 



686 



APPENDIX. 



they are embodied to be eminently favor- 
able to the prosperity of states, to be, in 
fact, the only principles of government 
which meet the demands of the present en- 
lightened age, the President has perceived, 
with great satisfaction, that, in the consti- 
tution recently introduced into the Aus- 
trian empire, many of these great principles 
are recognized and applied, and he cher- 
ishes a sincere wish that they may produce 



the same happy effects throughout his Aus- 
trian Majesty's extensive dominions that 
they have done in the United States. 

The undersigned has the Iwnor to repeat 
to Mr. Hiilsemann the assurance of his 
high consideration. 

Daniel Webstek. 

The Chevalier J. G. HUlsemann, Charge 
(T Affaires of Austria, Washinyton. 



INDEX. 



INDEX. 



A. 

[Aberdeen, Lord, on right of search, 6G1, 
662. 

'AboUtion Societies, Mr. Webster's opinion 
of, 571 ; effect of, 619. 

" Accede," word not found in the Constitu- 
tion, 276. 

Accession and Secession defined, 270. 

Act of 1793, regulating coasting trade, 121; 
of 1800, concerning custom-house bonds, 
3y3. 

Acts of 1824, concerning surveys for ca- 
nals, &c., 245. 

Acts of Legislature of X. H., on Corpora- 
tion of Dartmouth College, 1, 3 ; in re- 
gard to Dartmouth College, 14, 15. 

Adams and Jefferson, eulogy delivered in 
Faneuil Hall on, 156 ; coincidences in 
the death and lives of, 157; made draft 
of Declaration of Independence, 159 ; 
compared as scholars, 173. 

Adams, John, eulogized, 41, 140, 156 ; sensa- 
tion caused by his death, 156; birth and 
education of, 159; admitted member of 
Harvard College, IGO ; admitted to the 
Bar, 100 ; defends Britisli officers, and 
soldiers, 160; ofifered Chief Justiceship 
of Mas.«achusctts, 160; letter on the 
future of America, 160; his articles on 
" Feudal Law," 161 ; Delegate to Con- 
gress, 162 ; important resolution reported 
in Congress by, 163; appointed to draft 
tlie Declaration, 164 ; power in debate, 
166; remark of Jefferson on, 166; knowl- 
edge of Colonial history, 160; supposed 
speech in favor of the Declaration, lOS; 
Minister to France, 170 ; drafts Constitu- 
tion of Massachusetts, 170; concludes 
treaty witli Holland, 170 ; his "Defence 
of American Constitutions," 171 ; electcil 
to frame and revi.se Constitution of Mas- 
sachusetts, 170,171; Vice-President and 



President, 171 ; his scholnrslnp, 173; navy 
created in administration of, 175 ; |>i)litical 
abuse of, 251 ; letter on opening first Con- 
gress with prayer, 522. 

Adams, J. Q., at Bunker Hill, l;i9; his 
nominations to office postponed by the 
Senate, 348 ; remark on W'eb.nter, 4(XJ ; 
opposition to his administraliun, 434. 

Adams, Samuel, delegate to Congress, 162 ; 
signs tlie declaration, 170; movement lo 
open Congress with prayer, 522. 

Addition to the Capitol, speech at laying of 
the corner-stone of the, 639. 

Address, delivered at laying of corner-stono 
of Bunker Hill Monument, 123; on com- 
pletion of Bunker Hill .Monument, 1.56. 

African Slave-Trade, remarks of Mr. Web- 
ster on, 49 ; Congress lias power to re- 
strain, 233. 

African Squadron, maintained, 672. 

" Aiding and Abetting " tleHned, 207. 

Airs, the martial, of England, 371. 

Aldham, Mr., at dinner of New England 
Society in New York, 503. 

Allegiance, doctrine of perfH?tuaI, 650. 

Allied Sovereigns, claims of, over national 
inilependence, 61 ; effect of thoir meet- 
ing at Layhach on the people, 64 ; their 
conduct in regard to contest in (jreece, 
69; meeting at N'erona, 1M22, 15:!; over- 
throw Cortez government of Spnin, 15:». 

America, first railroad in. 126; her contri- 
butions to Kuro|)e. 14'.); diiceeiis of united 
government in, 499; extract from UJHhop 
of St. Asaph on colonies in, 640; political 
principles of, ti42. 

" American " and ' foreign policy," ap|)lied 
to system of taritf, 78. 

American Government, elements of, 148; 
principles of, in renpect to sufTragv, 539 ; 
the people limit tliemsi'lves, 5J0. 

American Liberty, priuciplct of, {>8ti ; our 
inheritance of, 612. 



44 



690 



INDEX. 



American People, what they owe to repub- 
lican principles, 66 ; establish popular 
government, 132; prepared for popular 
government, 132. 

American rolitical Principles, summary 
of, 642. 

American Revolution, commemorated by 
Bunker Hill Monument, 125 ; survivors 
of, at Bunker Hill, 127 ; character of 
state papers of, 130; peculiar principle 
of, 142. 

Amiens, Treaty of, remarks of Mr. Wind- 
ham on, 622. 

Ancestors, how we may commune with, 26. 

Ancestry, our respect for, 26. 

Annapolis, meeting at, concerning com- 
merce, 115. 

Antislavery Conventione, proceedings at, 
635. 

Appointing and removing power, speech on, 
394. 

Appropriations by Congress, shall be spe- 
cific, 418. 

Artisans, law prohibiting emigration of, 
from England, 91. 

Arts and Science, progress of, in the United 
States, 648. 

Ashburton, Lord, character of, 484 ; cited 
491 ; letter to Mr. Webster on impress- 
ment, 659. 

Astronomy, progress in, 648. 

Attainder, bill of, provision on prohibition 
of, 19. 

Attorney-General v. Cullum, in regard to 
charity for town of Bury St. Edmunds, 
527. 

Austria, agent of United States respect- 
fully received by, 684. 

Austria and Russia, friendly to United 
States in 1781, 685. 

B. 

Babylon, astronomers of, 340. 

Bache, A. D., quoted, 528. 

Bacon, Lord, 158. 

Badger, G. E., of N. Carolina, 587 ; voted 
against ceding New Mexico and Cali- 
fornia, 632. 

Balance of Trade, doctrine of, 91. 

Bank Charter, benefit of, to stockholders, 
324 ; first passed by Congress, 327. 

Bank Credit, benefit of, in United States, 
864 ; evils arising from abuse of, 364. 

Bank, National, Mr. Ewing's plan for a, 490. 

Bank Notes, must be convertible into specie, 
365. 

Bank of England, resumes cash payments, 
81. 



Bank of United States, object of, 81 ; charter 
vetoed, 321 ; effect of the veto in Western 
country, 322 ; time for renewal of charter, 
323 ; benefit of a charter to stockholders, 
324; foreigners as stockholders in, 32.5- 
327; advantage of, in case of war, 327; 
established, 328 ; its conduct under Mr. 
Adams's administration, 434 ; message 
of President Jackson in regard to, 434 ; 
how affected by events of 1829, 435; 
bill for re-charter passed by Congress, 
4.36 ; branch of, in New Hampshire, 436 ; 
order for removal of deposits, 436; act 
incorporating the, 466. 
Bankruptcy, a uniform system of, remarks 
on, 471 ; State laws concerning, ineffect- 
ual, 471. 
Bankrupt Law, of New York, considered, 

180 ; repeal of the, 471. 
Bankrupt Laws, to be established by na- 
tional authority, 179; absolute power of 
Congress to establish, 186 ; prohibition 
on State law in regard to, 186. 
Banks, effect of paper issues by, 81 ; safest 
under private management, 325 ; power 
of Congress to establish, 328, 3.34, 335; 
increase of, 440 ; susi^ension of specie 
payment, 443. 
Barre, Col., extract from speech on Ameri- 
can Colonists, 237. 
Barrow, Dr., his idea of " rest," xxxix. 
Bell, Senator from Tennessee, 614. 
Benevolent establishments of United States, 

651. 
Benson, Judge, Commissioner at Annapolis, 

310. 
Benton, Thomas H., speaks on Foot's reso- 
lution, 227 ; resolutions of, 407; allusion 
to, 569. 
Berkeley, Bishop, extract from, 639. 
Berrien, J. M., 570; resolution concerning 
Mexico, 586 ; proposition in respect to 
Texas, 611 ; vote against ceding New 
Mexico and California, 632. 
Bill, to limit time of service of certain 

officers, 394, 395. 
Bill of Rights, meaning of, concerning 

chartered charities, 10. 
Bill of Rights of N. H., articles infringed 
in regard to Dartmouth College, 14 ; pro- 
hibit retrospective laws, 14. 
Blacks from Northern States, how treated 

at the South, 620. 

Blake, George, 137. 

Boston, imprisonment of Sir E. Andros in, 

39 ; its port closed, 128 ; resolutions of, 

in 1820, 463 ; reception given to Mr, 

Webster in 1842, 481. 

Bowdoin, James, delegate to Congress, 162. 



INDEX. 



691 



Branch, Mr., resolution of, 373. 

Brewster, Elder, 27, 31, 62. 

Britisli Parliament, power claimed by, over 
ciiarters, 5. 

Brooks, Gov. John, 127. 

Brougham, Mr., his approval of the Monroe 
declaration, 155. 

Buena Vista, General Taylor at, 559. 

Buffalo, buildino; of a pier at, 424 ; recep- 
tiv)n of Mr. Webster at, and speech, May 
22, 1851, 62G ; citizens of, exhorted to 
preserve the Union, 027. 

BuUer, Justice, extract on government of 
corporations, 21. 

Bunker Hill Battle, address to survivors of, 
127 ; important etfects of, 129 ; changes 
of the fifty years following the, 131 ; 
survivors of, present at completion of 
monument, 138; described, 141; estab- 
lished Independence, 142. 

Bunker Hill Monument, address at laying 
of corner-stone, 123 ; William Tudor's 
idea of erecting the, 123 ; laying of corner- 
stone described, 123; completion of, 136; 
veterans present at completion of, 138; 
" stands on Union," 140 ; description of, 
151. 

Burke, Edmund, compliment to Charles 
Fox, xxxviii ; speeches of, criticised, lii ; 
bill for economical reform, 469. 



Cabot, George, notice of, 497. 

Calhoun, J. C, President of Senate and 
Vice-President of United States, 243; 
resolutions on State sovereignty, 273; 
speaks on Wilkins tariff bill, 273; 
course in regard to tariff of 1816,305; 
resolutions of, relating to slavery, 445 ; 
supports administration of Van Buren, 
451 ; remarks of Mr. Webster en the 
political course of, 4.53 ; letter on Sub- 
Treasury bill, 453 ; change in views upon 
Sub-Treasury bill, 454; advocates the 
State-rights party, 455, 464, 467 ; his ob- 
ject to unite tlie entire South, 457 ; attack 
on Mr. Webster, 458; Mr. Webster's 
reply to, 458 ; oppo.ses Mr. Dallas's bill 
for a bank, 400; bill of, for internal im- 
provements, 466 ; extract from, on the 
power of Congress, 467 ; took lead in an- 
nexing Texas, 60!l; remarks upon ailmis- 
sion of Texas, 611 ; dying testimony to 
Mr. Webster's conscientiousness, xliii. 

California, proposed annexation of, 663; 
article of cession to United States, 587 ; 
discovery of gold in, 601 ; Mexican pro- 
vincial government overthrown by, 601 ; 



establishment of local government in, 
602 ; slavery excluded from, by law of 
nature, 015. 

Canada, cession to England, efTect on the 
colonies, 42. 

Canals, act of 1824 concerning, 245. 

Caiming, Mr., opinion concerning Spain 
and her colonies, 154 ; approval of liie 
Monroe declaration, 155. 

Capitol, speech at laying of corner-stono 
of the addition to the, 639 ; copy of 
paper under corner-stone of, 644 ; foun- 
dation laid by Wasliington, 644 ; plan for 
extension of the, 644. 

Carroll, Charles, signer of the Declaration, 
176. 

Cass, Lewis, Mexican speech of, 554 ; as a 
Whig candidate, 675 ; as a candidate for 
President, 584 ; personal character of, 
584 ; in favor of the Compromise Line, 
588 ; requests his recall from France. 667 ; 
his construction of the treaty of Wash- 
ington referred to, 669, 671; answer of 
Mr. Webster to, concerning the African 
squadron, 672. 

Catharine the Second of Russia, policy in 
respect to Greece, 70. 

Cession, articles of, concerning New Mexico 
and California, 687. 

Channing, W. E., letter of, on slavery, 624. 

Charities, charters granted to founders 
of, 7 ; colleges included under, 7, 510 ; 
founder of incorporated, con?idered via- 
itor, 7; government may incorporate, 7; 
legal signification of, 7; opinion of I^ord 
Holt respecting the power of visitors 
over, 7 ; right of visitation in, incorpo- 
rated, 7 ; case of town of Bury St. Ed- 
munds, 527 ; schools founded by, must 
include religious instruction, 528. 

Charity, legal definition of, 610. 

Charles the Second, 39. 

Charters, of Dartmouth College (1769). 1; 
legislative power over, defined, 5 ; i>ower 
claimed by British Parliament over, 6; 
Lord .Mansfield on rights of, 6; legisla- 
tive jiower over, limited, 6; granted to 
founders of charities, 7 ; opinion of Lord 
Commissioner Eyre on charities estab- 
lished by, '.t ; how they affect jirDperty of 
corporations, 12; of the nature of con- 
tracts, 20, 21 ; how may be altered or 
varieil, 21 ; may be accepted at will. 21 ; 
no difference between grants of corjioralo 
franchise an<l tangible property, 21 ; of 
Dartmouth College (1769) ia a contract, 
22 ; obtained by founders of English 
liberty, 63; New England culuiii«l« re- 
quired Ihcm, 148. 



692 



INDEX. 



Chateaubriand, M. de, quoted respecting 
the Holy Alliance, 64. 

Chatham, Lord, his colonial policy, 42; 
opinion of the first Congress, 162. 

Chaucer, his use of word " green," xxxix. 

Chicago Road, President's opinion in re- 
spect to, 353. 

Cliina, trade of United States with, 95. 

Choate, Rufus, 496. 

Christian charity defined, 510 ; spirit of, 
519. 

Christianity, blended influence of civiliza- 
tion and, 65 ; observance of the Sabbath 
a part of, 518 ; essentials of, part- of the 
common law, 527, 530. 

Christian Ministry, and the Religious In- 
struction of the Young, speech in Su- 
preme Court, 505. 

Christian Ministry, opprobrium cast on the, 
by the Girard will, 508 ; establishment 
of, by Christ, 515 ; work of the, in United 
States, 509, 516. 

Christians, religious belief of, 521. 

Christ's command, " Sutler little children," 
&c., referred to, 517. 

Church, grants to, cannot be rescinded, 13. 

Civil Law, maxim of, in regard to slavery, 
573. 

Clay, Henry, speech on tariff of 1824 criti- 
cised by Mr. Webster, 78; author of 
American system of tariff, 78 ; resolution 
of, relating to slavery in District of Co- 
lumbia, 445 ; resolutions in respect to 
slavery, 600. 

Clayton, J. M., his explanation of Mr. 
Mann's mission, 680. 

Clerg}-, eulogium on, 509. 

Coast Survey of United States, 648. 

College Livings, rights and ch.aracter of, 16 ; 
attack of James the Second on Magdalen 
College, 17. 

Colleges, are eleemosynary corporations, 6, 
8, 22 ; charters granted to, 7 ; founda- 
tion of, considered by Lord Mansfield, 9; 
charters should be kept inviolate, 23 ; 
party or political influence dangerous to, 
23. 

Colonies, establishment of Greek, 31; of 
New England, 34, 35; of Roman, 33; of 
West India, 34, 35; Spanish in South 
America, 134, 144 ; New England and 
Virginia, 144; English and Spanish com- 
pared, 145; original ground of dispute 
between England and the, 164 ; American, 
de<;lared free and independent, 641. 

Colonists, English, in America, secret of 
their success, 147; brought their charters, 
148; in Virginia, failed for want of charter, 
148 ; allegiance to the king, 165. 



Columbus, Christopher, portrayed, 124, 144. 

Columbus, 0., convention at, in regard to 
the observance of the Sabbath, 518. 

Commerce, condition of, in 1824, 83 ; 
its national character, 92, 498 ; how 
affected by laws of Confederation, 114 ; 
power of Congress to regulate, 114, 120; 
resolutions of New Jersey in regard to, 
115; Mr. Witiierspoon's motion in Con- 
gress concerning, 115; of Virginia in re- 
gard to, 115; necessity of vesting Con- 
gress with power to control, 115 ; law of 
Congress paramount, 120; guarded by 
the general government, 497. 

Compact and government as distinguished 
from each otiier, 284. 

Compromise Act, principle of, 489. 

Compromise Line, in respect to slavery, 
588. 

Concurrent Legislation, defined and argued, 
116; effect on monopolies, 119. 

Confederation, its eflTect on commerce, 114 ; 
of 1781 a league, 276 ; state of the country 
under the, 281. 

Confessions, how to be regarded, 220. 

Congress of Delegates, at Philadelphia, 
1774, 162 ; resolutions on the Declaration, 
165 ; sat with closed doors, 166. 

Congress of Greece, of 1821, 72. 

Congress of United States, power to regu- 
late commerce, 114, 120; should have 
'power to regulate commerce, 115; and 
tlie States, argument on concurrent power 
of, 115 ; exclusive right over monopolies, 
116 ; possesses exclusive admiralty juris- 
diction, 118; law of, paramount, 120; 
laws of, in opposition to State law, 122 ; 
power concerning rights of authors and 
inventors, 122; its coinage powers, 185; 
to establish uniform bankrupt laws, 186 ; 
power over slave trade, 233 ; no power 
over slavery, 233, 429, 636 ; power to 
make laws, 293, 331 ; exclusive power to 
lay duties, 300 ; duty of, in case of a Presi- 
dential veto, 320; passes first bank 
cliarter, 1791, 327 ; to establish banks, 328, 
334, 335 ; power of, continuous, 336 ; 
duties of both houses, 375; power to bor- 
row money, 375; in regard to public 
moneys, 382 ; no precise time for ex- 
piration of session, 414; power over 
ceded territory, 445; no control over 
slavery, 571. 

Congress of Verona, in regard to Greek 
revolution, 70, 153. 

Connecticut, law of, concerning steam nav- 
igation, 112. 

Constitution of United States, provision con- 
cerning ex post facto laws, 19 ; its origin to 



1 



INDEX. 



G93 



regulate commerce, 114, 115 ; its authority 
to cstiiblisli haiikrupt laws, 179 ; law of, in 
regard to c-oiitracts, 180 ; object of tiie, 
185 ; provides a medium for payment of 
debts, and a uniform mode of disciiarging 
them, 180; prohibitions of, concerning 
contracts and payment of debts, 187 ; 
provisions for settling questions of Con- 
Btitiitional law, 265; to be interpreted by 
tlie judicial power, 265, 282; as a com- 
pact, 270 ; not a compact between Sover- 
eign States, argued, 278; object of, 281 ;• 
not a league, 282 ; what it says of itself, 
283 ; its relations to individuals, 286-^ 
Madison's opinion of, 313 ; provision of, 
in case of a Presidential veto, 320 ; 
President Jackson's view of, 35-i ; our 
duty to tlie, 358 ; protects labor, 361 ; 
division of powers conferred bj-, 379; on 
power of removal from office, 398 ; divides 
powers of government, 398 ; recognized 
slavery, 429, 570 ; does not speak of 
Sovereign States, or Federal Govern- 
ment, 538 ; protects existing government 
of a State, 542 ; and the Union, speech 
on, March 7, 1850, 600 ; formation of tlie, 

628 ; provision of, concerning fugitives, 

629 ; officers of the law bound to support 
the, 630; how it affected tlie institution 
of slavery, Ix. 

Constructive presence defined, 210. 

Contracts, eases cited concerning obliga- 
tion of, 19; cU-fined, include grants, 19; 
provision concerning obligation of, 19; 
law of the Constitution in regard to, 180; 
obligation of, defined, 180, 181 ; obliga- 
tion of, rests on universal law, 181 ; the 
law not a {wrt of, argued, 182-184 ; the 
constitutional provision in regard to, 185 ; 
prohibitiim on state law concerning, 187. 

Contention of 1787, remarks on, 287. 

Copper, duties received from, 108. 

Corporate Franchises, power of Legislature 
over, limited, 6. 

Corporations, acts of Legislature, on Dart- 
mouth College (17G9),2,3; royal preroga- 
tive to create, 5; power of King over, 
limited by Legislature, 5; power of Legis- 
lature to create, 5 ; opinion of Lord Mans- 
field on rights of, 5 ; divers sorts of, 6 ; 
eleemosynary, nature of, defined, 6, 9 ; 
power of, over property possessed by 
them, t) ; charter rights of visitors of, 7 ; 
power of visitation over transferal>Ie, 7 ; 
argument of Stillingfleet, 8 ; rights of 
trustees object of legal protection, 11; 
fr nchises granted to, 11 ; concerning 
pecuniary benefit from, 11; concerning 
private property, 12; concerning granla 



of land to, 13 ; right of trustees to elect 
officers, 16 ; legislature, cannot repeal 
stjilutes creating private, 2(t; e.xtnict from 
Justice Uulleron government of, 21 ; l»ow 
charters of, may be altered or varii'd, 21 ; 
possibk- dangers of independent govern- 
ment, 22. 

Cotton, attempt to naturalize gr<jwlh of, in 
France, 99 ; how atTeclod by taritl' of 
1824. 102; proposed reduction of iluiy 
on, 243 ; culture of, protected, 304 ; liow 
its cultivation affects blavcry and the 
South, 608. 

Cotton Manufactures, importance of, lUl ; 
of England and United States, 1U3. 

Crawford, Mr., opposing candidate to Mr. 
Adams, 581. 

Credit System, and the Labor of the United 
States, remarks on, 449. 

Credit System, benefit of, in United States, 
304 ; evils arising from abuse of, 364. 

Criminal Law, its object, 198. 

Cumberland lloaJ Bill, approved, 415. 

Currency, efftjct of paper issues to depre- 
ciate, 81 ; paper, ijf England, eflect on 
prices, 81 ; the laboring man's interest 
in, 360 ; experiment of exclusive specie, 
362; Presiilent's interferenci.' with, 43;<; 
soundness of, 440 ; derangement of, effect 
of, 442 ; its restoration an objtct of revolu- 
tion of 1840, 490. 

Cusliing, Thomas, delegate to Congress, 
102. 

Custom-house Bonds, act of 1800 in regard 
to, 383. 



D. 



Dallas, Geo M., proposition of, for a bank, 
460. 

Dane, Nathan, drafted Onlinance of 1787, 
231. 

Danemora, iron mines of, 105. 

Dartinoutli College, argument in cane of, 
1 ; acts of Legislature allecting, 1, 3, 14, 
15, 16, 18; corporation of. (1769.) 2; 
charter of, (1769,) is a contract, '2:1; ob 
servation of Mr. Webster on ojunion of 
court of N. H. concerning, 22; ineidi-nt 
connected with Mr. Webster's argument 
in case of, xxi. 

Davis, Judge, 532. 

Debt, abolition of imprisonment for, 474. 

Debtor and Creditor, law of, 472, 473. 

Debts, the ('oii>titiiiiou jirovidcH for the 
payment and di>charge of, 186. 

Declaration of Iiulependenee. 1<53 ; com- 
mittee appointed to draft the, ItH ; it« 



694 



INDEX. 



object and foundation, 165 ; speeches of 
Webster for, and dissenting, ascribed to 
Adams and another, 167, 168; anniver- 
sary of, 641. 

Democracy, Northern, policy of, 611. 

l^eposits, removal of, by the President, 369. 
See Public Mone3's. 

Dexter, Samuel, character of, 261. 

Disbursing Officers, tenure of office, 396. 

Discourse delivered at Plymouth, on " First 
Settlement of New England," 25. 

Dissolution of the Union, evils of, 346. 

District of Columbia, remarks of Mr. Web- 
ster on Slavery in, 445; resolutions on 
Slavery in, 445; power of Congress in, 
446. 

Divine Right, a doctrine of the Holy Alli- 
ance, 63. 

Dix, J. A., his vote for admission of Texas, 
611. 

Domestic Industry, not confined to manu- 
factures, 98. 

Dorr, Thomas W., at the head of revolu- 
tionary government of Rhode Island, 
£35; tried for treason, 536. 

Dough Faces, voted for Missouri Compro- 
mise, 583. 

Douglass, Stephen H., amendment concern- 
ing Missouri, 569. 

Drum-Beat of England, 371. 

Duane, W. J., removal of, from office, 368. 

Duche', Rev. Mr., opened first Congress 
with prayer, 522. 

Durfee, Chief Justice, charge of, in Dorr 
case of Rhode Island, 545. 

Duties on Imports, extract from speech on, 
(1846,) 110. 

E. 

Education, provision for general diffusion 
of, in New England, 47, 48 ; sentiment of 
John Adams on, 174. 

Edwards, Jonathan, his use of tlie word 
" sweetness," xxxix. 

Election, of officers of colleges, 16. 

Elections, rights of, 12; American system 
of, 540. 

Electricity, progress in, 648. 

Eleemosynary corporations, nature of, de- 
fined, 6, 9; colleges are included under, 
22. 

EUenborough, Lord, on commercial re- 
strictions, 87. 

Ellsworth, Oliver, extract from, on the Con- 
stitution, 288, 295. 

Eloquence, defined by Webster, 167. 

Embargo, Mr. Hillhouse's opinion of, 260 ; 
opposed by Massachusetts, 260. 



Emigration, different motives for, 31, 557 ; 
Grecian, 32; Roman, 33; purposes and 
prospects of Pilgrim Fathers, 35; toward 
the West, 41 ; to Californi-a, began, 601 ; 
how encouraged by England, 6'56. 

England, effect of taxation on land-holders 
in, 44 ; how land was holden, in time of 
Henry the Seventh, 44; paper system of, 
effect on prices, 81 ; protective system of, 
84 ; policy of, in respect to paper currency, 
86 ; manufacture of silk in, 87 ; removed 
certain restrictions on trade, 89 ; pro- 
visions concerning her shipping interest, 
109 ; course of, in regard to Spanish 
colonies, 154; the original ground of dis- 
pute between the Colonies and, 164 ; rela- 
tion of South Carolina to, in 1775, 259 ; 
maritime power of, in war of 1812, 461 ; 
imprisonment for debt abolished in, 474 ; 
progress of its power, 501 ; law of, in 
regard to charitable institutions, 527 ; 
representative system of, 538, 642; right 
claimed by, in respect to impressment, 
655 ; encourages emigration, 656. 

English Colonists, in America, secret of 
their success, 147. 

English Composition, school-boy's attempt 
at, xi ; falseness of style, xii. 

English Language, correct use in the United 
States, 148. 

English Revolution of 1688, 63; participa- 
tion of Massachusetts in, 39. 

Europe, effect in United States of pacifi- 
cation of, 242 ; condition of, at the birth 
of Washington, 341. 

Everett, Edward, Minister to England, 487 ; 
draft for the Iliilsemann letter, 678. 

Ewing, Thomas, resolution in regard to 
payments for public lands, 438; plan for 
a national bank, 490. 

Exchange, the rate of, 96 ; English stand- 
ard of, 97. 

Exchequer, plan of, Mr. Webster's appro- 
bation of, 491,492; sent to Congress in 
1842, 491. 

Exclusion of Slaverj^ from tlie Territories, 
speech on, Aug. 12, 1848, 569. 

Executive of United States, power over the 
press, 351, 352; refuses to execute law 
of Congress, 353 ; patronage, dangers of, 
304,395; power of, defined, 398 ; exten- 
sion of its power, 430, 431 ; change in the 
fiscal system effected by, 436. 

Executive Patronage, and removals from 
office, speech on, 347. 

Executive Usurpation, speech on, 353. 

Exeter College, judgment of Lord Holt, in 
case of, 7 ; argument of Stillingfleet, 8. 

Exports from the United States, 79, 93. 



INDEX. 



G05 



Ex post facto laws, prohibited by Consti- 
tution of U. S., 19. 

Eyre, Lord Commissioner, opinion of, on 
chartered charities, 9. 



F. 

Eaneuil Hall, draped in mourning for the 
first time, 15ti ; reception of Mr. Webster 
at, Sept. 30, 1842, 481. 
Federalism, history of, 252. 
Federalist, e.xtract from, on the Constitution, 

289. 
Festival of Sons of New Hain])shire, 598. 
Fillmore, Millard, laid corner-stone of ex- 
tension to tiie Capitol, 044; addressed, 
653. 
Fitch, John, grant to, concerning steam 

navigation, 112. 
Fitzsimmons, Mr., suggests protective du- 
ties, 303. 
Flagg, George, his painting of the Landing 

of the Pilgrims, 52. 
Fletcher v. Peck, case of contract, 19. 
Florida, acquisition of, 429; admitted into 

tlie Union, 559 ; cession of, 008. 
Foot's Resolution, in Congress, concerning 
Public Lands, 227 ; Mr. Webster's second 
speech on, 227 ; Mr. Webster's last re- 
marks on, 269. 
Foreigners, as stockholders in U. S. Bank, 

325-327. 
Foreign Interference, President Monroe on, 

153. 
Foreign Trade, to be encouraged, 94, 98. 
Forsytii, John, moves to reduce duty on 

cotton, 243. 
Fortification Bill, speech on loss of the, 
407; liistory of, 410-413; extract from 
President's Message on, 416. 
Foster, John, extract from his " Essay on 

Evils of Popular Ignorance," 523. 
Fox, Charles, remark on Lord Chancellor 
Thurlow, xxxvii ; and Burke, speeches 
of, compared, Ivi. 
France, subdivision of landed property in, 
44; prophecy concerning government of, 
44, 53 ; allies enter into, effect on trade, 
80; invasion of Spain, 153; alliance of 
U. S. with, declared void, 278 ; letters of 
marque, asked by President Jackson, 
420. 
Franchise, and liberty, synonymous terms, 

11 ; individual, protected by hiw, 15. 
Franchises, corporate, power of Legislature 
over, limited, 6; granted to trustees of 
corporations, 11. 
Francis the First, quoted, 081. 



Franklin, Benjamin, 39; appointed to draft 
the Declaration, 104. 

Franklin, State of, constitution of. and pro- 
vision to sujipiy a currency, 470. 

Free Blacks, from N'orlh, how treated at 
tlie South, U20. 

Free Press, attributes of, 350 ; the bestow- 
ing of ollice on coniiuctors of tlie, 351. 

Free Schools, of New England, 47. 

Free Soil men, character of, 031. 

Free Soil Party, platform of, 580; nominate 
Martin Van Buren, 581. 

Free Trade, speech of Mr. Webster on, 109, 
note. 

Freiglits, rates of, 83, 108 ; of iron from 
Sweden, 100. 

French Indemnity Loan, of 1818, 81. 

Frothingham, Richard, extract frotn, on lay- 
ing corner-stone of Bunker Hill Monu- 
ment, 123; account of completion of 
Bunker Hill Monmnent, 135. 

Fugitive Slave Law, of 1793, and 1850, 034 ; 
opposition to, 635. 

Fugitive Slaves, complaint of the South and 
duty of the North concerning, 017 ; pro- 
vision of the Constitution in respect to, 
629. 

Fulton, Robert, his exclusive right to navi- 
gation, 112. 

Fulton and Livingston, grant of steam navi- 
gation to, by New York, 112. 



G. 



Gage, Governor, convenes General Court 
at Salem, 102 ; rejects John Adams as 
Councillor, 102. 

Gaines, Major, description of New Mexico, 
5t)5. 

Gallagher, Wm. 1)., extract from, on 
growth of Western trade, 04(J. 

General Court, convened at Salem, 102 ; at 
Salem dissolved, and power of Kngland 
terminated, 102. 

Georgia, cession of her Western territory, 
008. 

German Literature, play ridiculing tlie, 454. 

(Jerry, Samuel, 170. 

Gibbons i-. Ogden, case of. 111; argument 
of .Mr. Webster in. 111. 

Girard College, provisions of Girurd's will 
in regard to, 506 ; restriction concerning 
religious instruction in, 507 ; no observ- 
ance of the Sabliatli there, 518. 

Girard, Stephen, will of, contested, 505j 
hia scheme derogatory to Christianity, 
515, 510. 

Glass, duty on, atlvisablc, 102. 



696 



INDEX. 



Gold, and silver as legal tender, 95 ; dis- 
covered in California, 601. 

Goodhue, Mr., 497. 

Goodridge Robbery Case, Mr. Webster's 
management of, xv. 

Government, nature and constitution of, 
43 ; republican form of, laws which regu- 
late, 43 ; of France, how effected by sub- 
division of land, 44, 53 ; subdivision of 
lands necessary to free form of, 44 ; the 
true principle of a free, 45 ; to be founded 
on property, 45 ; absolute or regulated, 
tiie question of the age, 60 ; influence of 
knowledge over, 131-133; difficulty of 
establishing popular, 132; influence of 
public opinion on, 133 ; popular, practi- 
cable, 134 ; popular, overthrown in Spain, 
153 ; powers of, concerning local im- 
provement, 238 ; power of, over internal 
improvements, 243 ; doctrine of South 
Carolina on State rights, 255 ; popular, 
rests on two principles, 297 ; the success 
of a united, 499. 

Government, American, character of, estab- 
lished by the Pilgrims, 85; origin and 
character of, 43 ; system of representa- 
tion in, 46 ; founded on morality and 
religious sentiment, 49; origin and source 
of power, 257; its establishment, 285; 
majority must govern, 295; danger of 
political proscription to the, 349 ; two 
principles upon which it stands, 319. 

Grants, legislature no power to rescind, 
when given for educational or religious 
purposes, 13 ; protection of, 19 ; included 
under contracts, 19. 

Great Britain, negotiation of treaty with. 
481. 

Greece, saved by battle of Marathon, 28 ; 
emigration from, 32 ; speech on revolu- 
tion in, 57 ; appeal to United States con- 
cerning revolution in, 57 ; extract from 
President Monroe, on revolution in, 58 ; 
we are her debtors, 58 ; improved condi- 
tion of, 68 ; conduct of Allied Sovereigns 
in regard to contest in, 69 ; Congress at 
Verona, 1822, concerning independence 
of, 70; Congress of 1821,72; revolution 
of 1821 in, 72; society of Vienna to en- 
courage literature in, 72 ; propriety of ap- 
pomting an agent to, 75; liberty of, 641 ;' 
want of union among her states, 642. 

Greeks, Baron Strogonoff" on the massacre 
of tiie, 71; excited to rebellion by Rus- 
sia, 69 ; our sympathy for cause of, 67 ; 
the oppression of, by Turkey, 68 ; what 
they have accomplished, 74. 

Griswold, George, toast to Daniel Web- 
ster, 496. 



H. 



Hale, Representative to Congress, 585. 

Hamilton, Alexander, liis services, 309. 

Hancock, John, presides in Congress, 167 ; 
signed the Declaration, 170 ; first signer 
of the Declaration, 497. 

Harbor Bill, course of President Jackson 
concerning, 353. 

Hardin, Col., description of New Mexico, 
567. 

Harrison, Wm. Henry, President, 481 ; the 
" Log Cabin " candidate, 476 ; civil char- 
acter of, 577. 

Hartford Convention, 235; design of, 253. 

Harvard College, 40, 48. 

Harvey, Peter, story told of Mr. Webster 
by, XV. 

Hayne, Robert Y., speaks on Foot's resolu- 
tion, 227 ; reply of Webster to, on Foot's 
resolution, 227; votes on internal im- 
provement, 245. 

Hemp, growth of, to be encouraged, 107 ; 
importation of, 107 ; effect of increased 
duty on, 108. 

Henry, Patrick, 172. 

Henry the Seventh, division of land in Eng- 
land in time of, 44 ; colonies planted in 
the reign of, 142. 

Hermitage, supposed visit of occupant of, 
to the Senate Chamber, 446. 

Hillard, Mr., remarks in Massachusetts 
Senate, 618. 

Hillhouse, Mr., opinion on the embargo 
law, 260. 

Hoar, Mr., mission of, to South Carolina, 
621. 

Holland, trade of, with the United States, 
93; our treaty with, of 1782, 170. 

Holt, Lord, opinion of, respecting power of 
visitors over corporations, 7. 

Holy Alliance, origin of, 61 ; efit'Ct on social 
rights, 62, 64 ; extract from Puffendorf, 
bearing on principles of, 62; principles 
of the, 62, 63 ; forcible interference a 
principle of, 63. 

Home Market, effect of manufactures on, 
84. 

House of Commons, representation in the, 
642. 

Hiilsemann Letter, written by Mr. Webster, 
679. 

Hume, Mr., remark on administration of 
justice, 315. 

Hungarians, arrival of, in the United States, 
682. 

Hungary, President Taylor's interest in the 
revolution in, 679; correspondence relat- 
ing to revolution in, 682. 



INDEX. 



G97 



Hunter, Mr., 678. 

Huskisson, Mr., 491 ; policy of, in respect 

to commerce, 93. 
Hutcliinson, Gov., 165. 



I. 



Immort.ilitj'^, inquiries concerning, 517. 
Impeacliment, closing appeal in defence of 

Judge James Prescott, 55. 
Imports, excess of, over exports, explained, 

ys. 

Impressment, convention of 1803, in respect 
to, G55 ; Englisli law in respect to, 655 ; 
letter of Mr. Webster to Lord Asliburton 
respecting, 655; injuries of, 658; letter 
of Lord Asliburton on, 659; rule of the 
United States in respect to, 058. 

Imprisonment for Debt, abolition of, 47-4. 

Inauguration of Washington, 312. 

India and Cliina, trade of United States 
witli, U6. 

Individual Rights, concerning charities, 12. 

Insolvent Debtors, act of New York con- 
cerning, 179. 

Insolvents, hopeless condition of, 472. 

Intellectual being, inquiries of an, 517. 

Interference, forcible, a principle of the 
Iluly Alliance, 63; a violation of public 
law, 65. 

Internal Improvements, in New England, 43 ; 
progress of, 80 ; general benefit from, 238 ; 
course of South Carolina towards, 238; 
at the West, opposition of the South to, 
240; attention of United States directed 
to, 242 ; course pursued by Mr. Webster 
in Congress towards, 243 ; votes of llayne 
on, 245 ; Mr. Calhoun's bill for, 406. 

International Law, duly of United States 
in regard to, 60, 61, 00. 

Ireland, coasting trade of England with, 
10!»; legislation <lesirod in, 499. 

Iron, concerning home manufacture of, 104- 
106 ; how afiected by tariff of 1824, 104 ; 
effect of increased duty on, 108. 



Jackson, Andrew, veto on United States 
Bank Bill, 320 ; opinion of Mr. Webster 
on the veto of the Bank bill, 337, 33«; 
message in regard to the Bank of United 
States, 343 ; uses his power to remove 
from office, 347 ; sentiments of Webster 
on re election of, 357 ; protest of, 367 ; 
removal of deposits by, 309 ; reconmiends 
letters of marque and rei)risal against 
France, 420 ; remarks of Mr. Webster on, 



423; his course concerning the currency, 
434; inauguration ns President, 4;!4 ; act 
of nniking sales of public lauds jhix iible 
in gold and silver, 4:{» ; charaeter of, 439 ; 
elected I'resiilent rice Mr. Adams in 1H28, 
581 ; idea of bridging the Potomac, 052. 

James the First, ids tyranny. 377. 

Janu's the Second, attack on college livings 
at Magdalen College, 17. 

Jay, John, his services, 311; appointed 
Ciiief Justice, 311; quoteil, 53« ; treaty 
of 17!»4 with England, 008. 

Jefferson, Thomas, news of the death of, 156 ; 
birth and education of. 103 ; elccteil to first 
Congress, 163, 172 ; his paper on " Kif;lits 
of America," 103; appointed tu draft the 
Declaration, 164; remark on Ailams iti 
Congress, 106; (iovcrnor of Virginia, 172; 
his "Notes on Virginia," 172 ; Minister 
abroad, 172; Secretary of State, 172; 
Vice-President and President, 172, 173; 
his " Manual of Parliamentary Practice," 
172 ; founded University of Virginia, 
173; his scholarship, 173; last days of, 
173; inscription for his moninnent, 173; 
Louisiana acquired in administration of, 
175 ; correspondence concerning the 
Confederation, 287 ; use of his power to 
remove from office. 348 ; opposed to ex- 
pending money without appropri.ition, 
418; admitted Louisiana into the Union, 
559; opinion of admitting Louisiana into 
the Union, 030 ; rule in respect to im- 
pressment, 658. 

Jewish Talmuds, 524. 

Johnson, lion. Uichard M., effort for aboli- 
tion of im])risonment for debt, 474. 

Johnston, Samuel, extract on the Constitu- 
tion, 288. 

.Jones, Sir William, extract from, 64.3. 

Joseph the Second, quoted, (!bl. 

Judiciary of United States, to interpret 
questions of constitutional law, 265, 282 ; 
extent of its power, 205, "^93 ; Mr. .Madi- 
son's opinion on, 294 ; Mr. Pinkney (m 
the, 294; its duties and extent, 310; 
how vacancies are tilled, 318; decides 
tlie constitutional laws, 330. 



Kemble, Mr., anecdote of, xxiii. 

Kennistons, Defence of the, xv. 

Kent, Chancellor, remarks at Webster din- 
ner in New York, .'lOT. 

King, (iov., action of, in revolution in 
Kiiode Island, 5.3(S. 

King, Mr., of Alabama, 413. 



698 



INDEX. 



King, Rufus, resolution of, in 1785, in re- 
gard to slavery, 235 ; member of Con- 
gress, and of the Convention of 1787, 606 ; 
on impressment, 657. 

King Solomon's Lodge, erect a monument 
to General Warren, 123. 

Knapp, J. F. and J. J., Jr., convicted of 
murder of Captain Joseph White, 193. 

Knowledge, its influence over governments, 
131-133; difTusion of, in United States, 
650. 

Knovvlton, anecdote of, xxvi. 

Kossuth, Louis, demanded of Turkey by 
Emperor of Russia, 598 ; extract from 
speech of Mr. Webster on, 51)8 ; his com- 
munication to American Charge d'Af- 
faires, 682. 



Labor, how to be protected, 82 ; different 
prices of, 105; protected by the Consti- 
tution, 361. 

Laborers, their interest in the currency, 
360 ; character of Northern, 620 ; of the 
North, compared with Southern slaves, 
620. 

Labor-Saving Machines, 451. 

Lafayette, Gen., addressed by Webster at 
Bunker Hill, 130. 

Land, a subdivision of, necessary to free 
form of government, 44 ; effect of taxa- 
tion on division of, in England, 44 ; iiow 
holden in England in time of Henry the 
Seventh, 44; prophecy concerning sub- 
division of, on government of France, 44, 
53. 

Landing of Pilgrims at Plymouth, picture 
representing, 52. 

Lands, Public, Mr. Foot's resolution in re- 
gard to, 227 ; views of Mr. Webster con- 
cerning the disposition of, 237, 238 ; 
powers of government to donate for local 
improvement, 238; donations of, neces- 
sary for local improvement, 239 ; liberal 
reduction in price of, favored by New Eng- 
land, 241 ; whence obtained, 426 ; States 
liave no sovereignty over, 426 ; question 
of revenue connected with, 427; liberal 
policy in respect to sales of, 427 ; revenue 
arising from sales of, 428 ; act making 
sales of, payable in gold and silver, 
438. 

Lansdowne, Lord, quoted on prohibitory 
duties, 80, 94. 

Law, of the land, relating to individual fran- 
chise, 16 ; interest and duty of United 
States in International, 66 j criminal, its 



object, 198; Mr. Webster's respect for, 
319 ; representation tlie foundation of, 
643 ; the supreme rule, 643. 

Laws, vaUdity of, not to depend upon the 
motive, 301. 

Laybach, circular of sovereigns at, 62. 

Lay preaching and lay teaching, 513. 

League, defined, 278. 

Lee, Richard Henrv, resolution of June, 
1776, 163. 

Legislation, society to be regarded in, 103 ; 
concurrent power of States with Congress, 
116-118; will of the people ascertained by, 
541. 

Legislative Power, over charters, defined, 
5 ; restriction imposed upon, 23. 

Legislature, Acts of. See Acts of Legisla- 
ture. 

Legislature, power of King over corpora- 
tions, limited by, 5 ; power of,- to create 
corporations, 5 ; power of, over charters, 
limited, 6 ; cannot resume" grants of land 
given for educational or religious pur- 
poses, 13 ; power of, to affect individual 
rights, 15 ; cannot repeal statutes creating 
private corporations, 20 ; power of, re- 
strained by Ordmance of 1787, 234. 

Legislatures, to support the Constitution 
of United States, 286. 

Leigh, Mr., 412. 

Letters of Marque, against France, asked 
by President Jackson, 420. 

Liberties, defined, 11. 

Liberty, love of religious, 29 ; character- 
istics of, 122; the contests for, 385; prin- 
ciples of American, 536 ; of Greece, Rome, 
and America, 641, 642. 

Lincolnshire, Pilgrims in, 30. 

Literature, its advantages in public life, 
174 ; progress in, 649. 

Liverpool Blue Coat School, 528. 

Liverpool, Lord, 491 ; on freedom of trade, 
86. 

Livingston and Fulton, right of steam navi- 
gation granted by New York, 112. 

Livingston, Chancellor, his services, 311. 

Livingston, Robert R., 126. 

Local institutions for local purposes, and 
general institutions for general purposes, 
498. 

Local legislation, benefits of, 498, 499. 

Log Cabin Candidate, remarks on, 476. 

Log Cabin, origin of the term, 476. 

Louisiana, acquisition of, 175; how ob- 
tained, 429 ; slave-holding States framed 
from, 608 ; admission of, into the Union, 
630 ; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of admitting 
to the Union, 630. 

Luther, Reformation of, 143. 



INDEX. 



G99 



M. 



Macaulay, extract from, on Englisli lawyers 
and English statesmen, xli. 

McCleary, I'fll at Cliark-stown, 130. 

McDowell, Governor of Virginia, 010. 

MacDutKe, specxjli on Internal Improve- 
ments leferreil to, 244. 

Machinery, law i)rohibiting exportation of, 
from England, 01. 

M;i(;hincs, not labor-saving, but labor-doing, 
4.')1. 

McLane, Louis, instructions to, concerning 
colonial trade, 581. 

McLeod, Alexander, case of, 482. 

Madison, James, knowledge of the Consti- 
tution, 247, '250,018; on the Judiciary, 
294; extracts from, on duties on imports, 
303 ; his public services, 310, 312 ; opinion 
on nullification, 313 ; Secretary of State 
and President, 313 ; approved United 
States Bank, 331 ; opinion in regard to 
removal from office, 347 ; on impeach- 
ment, 431 ; Secretary of State, oo'J ; ar- 
ticle of, admitting Louisiana into Union, 
559 ; opinion of, on slavery, GOlJ. 

Majority Government, 205. 

IMann, A. D., instructions to, 683. 

Mansfield, Lord, opinion of, on chartered 
rights, 5 ; foundation of colleges consid- 
ered by, 9. 

Manufactures, acts of 1816 and 1824 respect- 
ing, 99. 

Marathon, battle of, how affected Greece, 
28. 

Marshfield, speech at, Sept. 1, 1848, 575. 

Martial Law, defined, 549. 

Martin, Mr., opinions on the Judiciary, 294; 
objections to the Constitution, 303. 

Maryland, settlement of, 125. 

Mason, J. W., on slave labor, 573; bill con- 
cerning fugitive slaves, 617. 

Mason, Jeremiah, death of, 580; obituary 
remarks of Mr. Webster, 589 ; resolutions 
on death of, 589 ; his ancestry, 590 ; ap- 
pointed Attorney-General, 592; Senator 
of United States, 593 ; his style as an 
orator, xix; his respect for Daniel Web- 
ster, XX. 

Massachusetts, participation in English 
Revolution, 39 ; commercial progress of, 
40; voted against taritT of 1824, 110; 
Constitution of, when framed and revised, 
170, 171; eulogium on (Webster), 254; 
opposes the embargo law, 2*10 ; duty to 
the Constitution, 358 ; her general pros- 
perity, 451 ; her action on abdication of 
James II., 537. 

Mathers, father and son, 39. 



Mayflower, compact signod in her cabin, 
35; objfct of licT voyage, 143. 

Melville, Major, removed from custom- 
house, 348. 

Membir.s of Congress, appointment of, to 
office, 350. 

Merchant N'essels, national territory, 056. 

Message, of President Monroe on foreign in- 
terference, approved by Loni Hrougliam, 
165; iiow received by the people, 155; 
of Gen. Jackson, 1829, views in respect 
to Bank of the United States, 484. 

Methodist Churclw. Kemington.easeof, 530. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, separation of, 
in regard to slavery, 004. 

Mexican treaty, clauses ceding New Mex- 
ico and California, 587 ; Mr. Webster's 
vote in respect to, 587. 

Mexican War, speech on, 551; objects of 
the, 552, 553, 550. 

Mexico, the Sixteen Million Loan Bill for 
prosecuting war with, 551 ; treaty of 1848 
between United States and, 551 ; objects 
of the war with, the cession of territory, 
552, 5-53, 550; forced to cede territory to 
United States, 552, 001 ; aversion of, to 
cede territory, 557 ; war declared against, 
COl ; the treaty with, 632. 

Military Academy at West Point, the ap- 
propriation for, 408. 

Military Achievements, important by their 
results, 28. 

Milton, John, use of word;;, xiii. 

Missionaries in Georgia, 35;. 

Mississippi Uiver, future dcntre of the 
country, 022. 

Missouri Compromise, line of, 570. 

Missouri, law for the admission of, 509. 

Monmouth, associations of, 339. 

Monopolies, rej)ort on impracticability of, 
89; power of Congress over, 116; efTcct 
of State power over, 119. 

Monroe, James, extract from message on the 
struggle in Greece, 5S ; extract from mes- 
sage concerning foreign interference, 153. 

Morris, Uobert, notice of, 497. 

Morton, Perez, delivered eulogy on (ien. 
Warren, 123. 

Murder, of Capt. Joseph White, at Salem, 
189 ; portrayed, 1!I5 ; what constitutes a 
principal in, 207 ; what constitutes un 
abettor to, 208 ; two sorts of, 208. 

Murphy, .Mr., in regard to Texas, 612. 



N. 



Napoleon, attempt in respect to cotton, 99. 
Nashville Convention, 022. 



700 



INDEX. 



National Law, concerning offences against 
the, 698 ; Emperor of Russia bound by, 
598. 

Natural Hatred of Poor for the Kich, re- 
marks of Webster on, 359. 

Navigation, English act of 1660, restricting 
the trade of the N. E. Colonies, 37 ; con- 
dition of that of United States (18-24), 83 ; 
of Hudson River and Long Island Sound, 
exclusive claim of Fulton to, 112. 

Navy, creation of, 175 ; Mr. Webster's 
early support to the, 4G1 ; of the United 
States, its strength in 1850, 649. 

Neutrality of United States, defined, 152. 

New England, discourse on First Settlement 
of, 25; first settlement of, 28; English Act 
of Navigation, 1660, restricting trade of, 
87 ; progress of the first century of, 38 ; 
opening of second century of, 40; popu- 
lation of, in 1820, 40 ; her part in wars be- 
tween England and France, 42 ; war of 
the Revolution begun in, 42 ; internal im- 
provement in, 43 ; the subdivision of lands 
in, necessary, 43, 44 ; right of primogeni- 
ture abolished in, 44 ; free schools of, 47 ; 
prosperity of, in 1824, 78 ; forced into 
manufactures, 110; causes which led to 
settlement of, 141-144 ; its free schools, 
174 ; attack of Hayne on, 2-36, 249 ; policy 
of, concerning Western population, 238 ; 
interest of, in public improvements, 239 j 
when, how, and why her measures favor 
the West, 240 ; favors reduction of price 
of public lands, 241 ; supported adminis- 
tration of Washington, 250; her course 
concerning the embargo, 261 ; New Eng- 
land Society of New York, object of its 
formation, 500 ; settlement of, 501. 

New Hampshire, acts of Legislature, relat- 
ing to Dartmouth College, 1, 14, 15, 16, 
18; legislative and judicial power, sepa- 
rate, 15 ; extract from speech, at festival 
of natives of, 598. 

New Jersey, law of, concerning steam navi- 
gation, 112 ; resolutions concerning com- 
merce, 115. 

New Mexico, proposed annexation of, 562 ; 
population of, 563 ; country described by 
Major Gaines, 565 ; nature of country in- 
habitants, 566 ; prognostications of Mr. 
Webster in regard to admission of, 568; 
article of cession to United States, 587 ; 
existence of peonism in, 615 ; slavery ex- 
cluded from, by law of nature, 615. 

Newton, Isaac, 1.58. 

New York, grant of steam navigation to 
John Fitch, 112 ; grant of steam naviga- 
tion to Livingston and Fulton, 112; laws 
of, concerning steam navigation, 112, 113; 



act of, concerning insolvent debtors, 179; 
insolvent law of, 183 ; public dinner given 
to Webster in, 307 ; growth of, contempo- 
rary with the Constitution, 309 ; her loy- 
alty to the Union, 318 ; toast of Webster 
to Cit}' of, 319 ; Reception of Webster at, 
in 1837, 422 ; law of 1845 in respect to 
elections, 542; her vote for annexing 
Texas, 631. 

Niles, J. M., his vote for admission of Texas, 
611. 

North, duty of, in respect to fugitive sl.ives, 
617 ; complaints of, against the South, 
620. 

North and South, grievances of, 617, 620. 

Northern Democracy, policy of, 611. 

Northwestern Territory, concerning slavery 
in, 234 ; slavery excluded from, 571. 

Nullification, right of, denied, 257 ; right 
of, never advanced in New England, 203 ; 
practical operations of, in South Carolina, 
266 ; practical operation of, 279, 282, 298 ; 
threatened in South Carolina, 355; dan- 
gerous tendency of, 355. 



o. 



Oath, legal definition of, 526. 

Office. See Removal from Office. 

Ogden, A., his right to navigation, 11.3. 

Ogden V. Saunders, argument in case of, 
179. 

Ohio, settled mostly by Southern emigra- 
tion, 574. 

Old Colony Club, formation of, 25. 

Old Thirteen, their public lands, 426. 

Ordinance of 1787, drafted by Nathan Dane, 
231, 234; prohibits slavery, 231; re- 
strained legislative power, 234. 

Oregon, bill to organize a government for, 
569; established a free Territory, 587; 
government of, established, 616. 

Ormichund i\ Barker, case of, 526. 

Orphans, provision of Stephen Girard for 
education of, 506. 

Otis, James, his speech on Writs of Assist- 
ance noticed, 161. 



Paine, Robert Treat, 170 ; delegate to Con- 
gress, 162. 

Paine, Thomas, extract from his " Age of 
Reason," 514. 

Panama ISIission, speech on, 152. 

Paper Currency, of England, effect on prices, 
81 ; the evils of, 82 ; experiment of a re- 



INDEX. 



701 



dcemalile, Z('A ; advantages of a, in the 
United States, 3tJo ; prediction concern- 
ing irredeemable, 365. 
Parable of tlie prodigal son, G47 ; tlie wid- 
ow's mite, referred to, 519. 
Tarker, Chief Justice, 207 ; death of, 104. 
Parliament, power of, over the Colonies, 

105. 
Parmenter, Mr., voted for tariff of 1842, 

489. 
Partiienon, referred to, 346. 
Parties, origin wf, 250; violence of, 251. 
Party Spirit, Washington's exhortation 

against, 345. 
Patent-Office, established, G48. 
Patterson, Mr., propositions of, in regard to 

Confederation, 287. 
Peace, the policy of the United States, 59. 
Peaceable Secession, the impossibility of, 

G21. 
Penn. William, 529. 

Pennsylvania, memorial to abolish slavery, 
232; opinion on tariff bill, 258, 2G2; how 
affected by veto of U. S. Bank Bill, 323 ; 
of Christian origin, 512 ; the public policy 
of, 529 ; laws of, in regard to charitable 
bequests, 530. 
Peonism, existence of, in New Mexico, 615. 
People, source of power, 257 ; will of, to be 

ascertained by logislaticm, 541. 
Perkins, Thomas H., eulogized, 138. 
Peter the Great, policy of Russia developed 

under, 69. 
Philadelphia, convention of Whigs at, 575. 
Piiillips V. I5ury, case of Exeter College, 7. 
Pickering, Timothy, amendment to Mr. 
Calhoun's bill for internal improvements, 
466. 
Pilgrim Fathers, first celebration of anni- 
versary of landing of, 25 ; our homage 
for, 27 ; prophecy for the future of their 
work, 29 ; motives which led them into 
exile, 29; departure of, for Ilollaml, 30; 
establish their government, 35 ; their pur- 
poses and prospects in emigration, 35. 
Pilgrim Festival at New York, speech of 

Mr. Webster, 496. 
Pilgrim Society, formation of, 25. 
Pinkney, Thomas, opinion on the Judiciary, 

294. 
Plymouth, Landing of Pilgrims at, speech 
in commemoration of, Dec. 22, 1820, 25; 
speech of Dec. 22, 1843, 496. 
Plymouth Hock, landing on, described, 27. 
Policy, of United States, peaceful, 59; neu- 
tral, defined, 152. 
Political Parties, existence of, 250. 
Political Power, the people the source of, 
637. 



Political Revolution, 132. 
I'olk, James K , will of, to take territory 
from Mexico, 657 ; reniarku of Mr. Web- 
ster on, 558; elected President in 1H44, 
583 ; avowal in respect to .Mi-xicuii witr, 
602. 

Poor, the, and the Uich, 359. 

I'opi', quotation from, 583. 

Popular Knowledge, progress of, and Iho 
causes, 450. 

Posterity, our relation to, 26. 

I'otonuic River, idea of President Jackson 
to britlge the, 052. • 

Prescott, Judge James, closing appeal in 
defence of, 55. 

Prescott, William, at Hunker Hill, 138. 

President of the United States, power of 
removal from office, 329 ; no power to 
decide constitutionality of laws, 330; 
power to remove ami to control an officer, 
369; former practice of, to a<l'lre8s Con- 
gress in person, 374 ; power of appointing 
public officers, 383 ; oath of, 3.>j4 ; is re- 
sponsible to the people, 391 ; not the sole 
representative of the people, 391 ; power 
of, over removal from oflice, 397, 399 ; 
custom of, on last ilay of a session of 
Congress, 413 ; duty of, 417; how com- 
municate his wishes to Congress, 417; 
called the representative of the Ameri- 
can peo|)le, 432. 

Presidential Protest, speech on, 367 ; gen- 
eral doctrines of, 392 

Presidential Veto of United States Bank 
Bill, si)ecch on, 320. 

Press, freedom of, essential to free govern- 
ment, 619 ; violence of, in resi)ect to slav- 
ery, 619. 

Primogeniture, the right of, abolished in 
New ICngland, 44. 

Property, general division of, necessary to 
free government, 45. 

Proscription, exercised by President Jack- 
son, 348; jKilitical, danger of, to tlio 
governnu'nt, 3I!». 

Protection, incidental, policy of England, 
84 ; should be limited, entire prohibition 
destructive, 90; Mr. Webster's vit-ws on, 
42S ; an object of the revolution of 1840, 
489. 

Public Credit, in 1812,404. 

Public Lands. ><'• Lands. Public. 

Public Law, extract from Puffcudorf on, 
62; forcible interference a violation of, 
65. 

Public Moneys, to whom belongs the cus- 
tody of, 308 ; place of ilei>osil of, fixed by 
Congress, 370; power of Cong^e^8 over, 
882; extract from Protest in regard (o, 



702 



INDEX. 



382 ; law of 1836 to regulate deposits of, 
437. 

Public Opinion, power of, 67, 483 ; its influ- 
ence over governments, 183. 

Public Worsliip, in United States, 651. 

Puffendorf, extract from, bearing on prin- 
ciples of Holy Alliance, 62. 

Putnam, Judge, 632. 



Q. 

Quakers, their preachers, 524. 
Quincy, Josiah, Jr., quoted, 129. 
Quincy, Hon. Josiah, 159. 



R. 



Radicals, of South Carolina, 244. 

Railroads, first in America, 126. 

Raleigh, Sir W., referred to, 143. 

Randolph, Jefferson, proposition of, to 
abolish slavery, 619. 

Randolph, Gov., on domestic slavery, 232. 

Raymond, Henry J., reporter of Mr. Web- 
ster's speeches, xxiv. 

Reception of Mr. Webster at Boston, Sept. 
80, 1842, 481 ; at Buffalo, May 22, 1851, 
626 ; at New York, 307. 

Reformation, provisions for religious in- 
struction in schools at time of, 526. 

Religion, tlie only conservative principle, 
524; state of society without, 525; sup- 
posed case of a graduate of Girard Col- 
lege questioned in regard to, 625 ; neces- 
sity of, to man, ().50. 

Removal from Office, speech of Webster on, 
347 ; power of President in regard to, 347, 
397, 399 ; decision of Congress in regard 
to, 347 ; Mr. Madison's opinion in regard 
to, 347 ; Mr. Jefferson's use of the power 
of, 348; concerning the press, 351; ex- 
tract from constitution of England on, 
389; dangers of unlimited power in, 395; 
act of 1820 in regard to, 396, 397 ; act of 
1789 on, 397, 401, 402, 404, 405 ; Constitu- 
tion of U. S. on, 398; manner of, 400; 
power of, incident to power of appoint- 
ment, 400, 401, 402 ; effect of a nomina- 
tion on, 401 ; concerning inferior officers, 
402; reasons must be stated for, 404. 

Removal of Deposits, object of, 366 ; by ex- 
ecutive power, 369. 

Reply to Hayne, by Webster, 227. 

Representation, American system of, 46 ; 
in connection witii government, 341 ; in- 
equality of, produced by annexing slave 
States, 561; of slaves, complaints of the 



Nortli against, 620 ; popular governments 
established on the basis of, 642 ; in House 
of Commons, 642 ; the foundation for law, 
643. 

Representative Government, experiment 
of, 341. 

Representative System in England, 638. 

Republican Government. See Government, 
American. 

Repudiation denounced, 494. 

Resolutions, for appointment of an agent to 
Greece, 57 ; by John Adams, preparatory 
to the Declaration, 163 ; of Congress on 
Declaration of Independence, 165 ; of 
Foot in Congress, in regard to Public 
Lands, 227 ; of Congress concerning slav- 
ery, 233 ; of Calhoun concerning State 
sovereignty, 273 ; of Convention of 1787, 
287; of Senate concerning executive 
veto, 368; on slavery' in District of Co- 
lumbia, 445; on Mr. Webster's speech on 
Girard will, 605 ; from State Legislatures 
respecting slavery, 618. 

Retrospective law, defined, 14 ; extract 
from Chief Justice Kent on, 14; passage 
of, prohibited, 14. 

Revenue, Mr. Webster's views on, 428. 

Revolution, defined, 277. 

Revolution, American, causes of, 37: begun 
in New England, 42; commemorated by 
Bunker Hill Monument, 12-5, 126; sur- 
vivors of, at Bunker Hill, 127 ; character 
of state papers of, 130; originated ou a 
question of principle, 371. 

Revolution in Greece, speech on, 57. 

Revolution of 1840, its objects, 488. 

Revolution, Political, 132. 

Rhetoric, Daniel Webster as a master of 
English style, xi. 

Rhode Island, argument on government of, 
535; proceedings of revolutionary party 
of 1841 in, 5.35; proceedings of the Dorr 
party in, 544; new constitution of, 545; 
action of President Tyler in respect to 
insurrection in, 547 ; error of charter 
government of, 649 ; good effects of the 
agitation in, 549. 

Rich, Capt. Benjamin, 487. 

Richmond, Va., address to the ladies of, 
478. 

Right of Approach, of ships of war at sea, 
664. 

Riglit of Search, letter of Mr. Webster on 
the, 660; British claim to, 662; not dis- 
tinct from right of visit, 662 ; view of the 
United States, on, 664-666; Lord Aber- 
deen on the, 670. 

Rights, Legal, not affected by pecuniary 
profit, 12; of electors, 12; of individuals, 



INDEX. 



703 



in regard to own property, 12 ; individ- 
ual, protci'tcd by law, 15. 
fRio Grande, Texas claims to line of, 562 ; 
worthlessness of the valley of the, 5(35. 

Rives, \V. C, opinions of the Constitution, 
284. 

Robbins, Rev. Chandler, delivers address 
on anniversary of landing of Pilgrims, 25. 

liobinson, Kev. John, 30, 31. 

l{i)me, liberty of, G42. 

Husk, Mr., Senator from Texas, 5G3. 

Russia, extract from Emperor on proper 
policy, 64; under Peter the Great, (W ; 
excited the Greeks to rebellion, 69; under 
Catharine the Second, 70; her trade witii 
the United States, 93 ; Emperor of, bound 
by the law of nations, 598 ; Emperor of, 
demands Kossuth of Turkey, 598. 
Ruxton, Mr., description of New Mexico, 
567. 



S. 



Sabbath, convention at Columbus, O., in 
regard to observance of the, 518 ; the ob- 
servance of, a part of Christianity, 518. 

St Asaph, Bishop of, extract from dis- 
course, 640. 

Salem, sentiments of, at the closing of port 
of Boston, 129; General Court at, 1G2. 

Sargent, Henry, picture representing Land- 
ing of the Pilgrims, by, 52. 

Schools, founded by charity, must include 
religious instruction, 528. 

Schools of New England, 174. 

Science and literature, 51. 

Scio, destruction of, 73. 

Scott, Gen. Winfield, brilliant campaign of, 
I 654 ; referred to, 578. 

Seamen, letter of Daniel Webster on im- 
pressment of, 658. 

Search. See Right of Search. 

Secession, defined, 276; right of States to, 
denied, 278, 282; practical consequences 
of, 279 ; no such thing as peaceable, 621 ; 
of Virginia, improbability of, 646 ; men 
of the Southern States addressed in re- 
spect to, G17. 

Secretary of the Treasury, his custody of 
the public moneys, 308. 

Senate of the United States, a body of, 
equals, 229; resolution concerning execu- 
tive veto, 368; its riglit of self-defence, 
372. 

Shakspeare, use of words, xiii. 

Shaw, Ciiief Justice, 532. 

Sheridan, remark of, xxv. 

Sherman, Roger, appointed to draft the 
Declaration, 164. 



Shipping Interest, how affected by tariff of 
18:i4, lus. 

Shipping of England, provisions in respect 
to, 109. 

Ships of War, their right to «pi)roacii ves- 
sels at sea, 664. 

Silk, manufacture of, in England, 87. 

Silsbee, Hon. N., 849. 

"Sink or swim, survive or perisli," etc., 
168. 

Slave, and Slavery, words not found in the 
Constitution, 006. 

Slavo-holding States, advantages of, in re- 
spect to representation, 233 ; rights of, 
in regard to new territories, 572. 

Slave Labor, its relation to tree, 573; com- 
pared with laboring men of the North, 
020. • 

Slavery, prohibited by Ordinance of 1787, 
231; petitions to first Congress toabolisii, 
232 ; memorial from Pennsylvania to abol- 
ish, 232 ; Gov. Randolph, sentiments on, 
232; Mr. Webster's sentiments on, 2.32; 
Congress has no power over, in the 
States, 233; plans for exclusion of, in 
Northwestern Territory, 234 ; resolution 
of Hufus King in regard to, 23.j ; views 
of Mr. Webster on, 429 ; beyond the 
power of Congress, 429 ; recognized by 
the Constitution, 429, 570; inexpetliency 
of annexing slave States, 429 ; in District 
of Columbia, remarks on, 445; .Mr. \Vel>- 
ster's opinion in regard to power of Con- 
gress over, 402 ; speech on exclusion of 
from the territories, 509; peculiarity of 
American, 570; entailed upon the colo- 
nies by England, 571 ; Congress 1ms no 
control over, 571, 630; exelmled fnun 
Northwestern Territory. 671 ; exists by 
local laws, 67.3 ; Mr. Webster's opinion 
of extension of slavery and slave repre- 
sentation, 674 ; the Compromise Line in 
respect to extension of, 588; resolutions 
of Henry Clay in respect to, 6(>0; pros- 
pect of California and New Mexico being 
free States, 002; its existence among the 
Greeks and Komans, 603; gcntimeuts of 
the North and South on, nt framing of 
the Constitution, 0<l.'>; Ordinaneeof 1787 
in respect to, 606 ; Mr. Madison's opinion 
on, 60ri; concurrence of sentiment be- 
tween North and South on subject of. 
607 ; causes which led to an extension 
of, in the South, 608 ; change of opinion 
of the South in respect to. i.lW ; churaclcr 
of all the territory of the United States 
fixed beyond power of the gHverninent, 
609; excludeil from California and New 
Mexico by law of nature. 016, 032 ; effctl 



704 



INDEX. 



of abolition societies at the North, 619; 
proposition of Mr. Randolpli in respect 
to, 619; comparison of slaves of South 
and laboring people of the North, 620 ; 
complaints of tiie North concerning repre- 
sentation in Congress, 620; concerning 
transportation of free colored people, 
623; Mr. Webster's course concerning, 
630; proceedings of antislavery conven- 
tions, 6-35. 

Slaves, emancipation of, in District of Co- 
lumbia, 375; provision of the Constitu- 
tion in respect to fugitive, 629. 

Slave Trade, remarks of Mr. Webster on, 
49 ; American policy concerning the, 666. 

Smith, Gen., vote on bank question, 328. 

Smith, Hon. Truman, speecli referred to, 
566. 

Smitii, Mr., of South Carolina, on protec- 
tion, 304. 

Smitlison, Hugh, founded Smithsonian In- 
stitute, 652. 

Sraitiisonian Institute, establishment, 652. 

Social system, elements of a, established by 
compact of the Pilgrim Fathers, 35. 

Society, rights of, affected by principles of 
Holy Alliance, 62, 64. 

Soutli, policy of, toward Western improve- 
ment, 238 ; complaints concerning tlieir 
rights, 672; the lead in the politics of the 
country, 608 ; complaints of, against the 
North, 617, 

South America, combination of European 
Sovereigns against, 66 ; position of U. S. 
government towards, 66 ; revolution in, 
134 ; Spanish colonies of, 134. 

South American Republics, our relations to, 
152. 

South Carolina, concerning internal im- 
provements, 238, 243 ; her action on tariff 
of 1816, 243 ; radical party in, 244 ; at- 
tack on, disclaimed, 253 ; eulogium on, 
(Webster,) 254; doctrine of, concerning 
State rights, 255 ; in 1775, and 1828, 259 ; 
relation to England in 1775, 259; resist- 
ance to laws of the Union advised, 259; 
practical operation of nullification in, 
266 ; nullification threatened in, 355. 

Southern Confederacy, impossibility of, 621. 

Spain, French invasion of, 67, 153 ; want of 
protection in, 99; overthrow of popular 
government in, 153; invites co-operation 
of Holy Alliance over colonies in Ameri- 
ca, 154. 

Spanish Settlements in America, 144. 

Specie, unusual demand for, and the cause, 
81 ; drain of, owing to French Indem- 
nity Loan, 81 ; the exportation of, 95 ; 
experiment of an exclusive specie cur- 



rency, 362; treasury order concerning 
payments for public lands, 438 ; its uses, 
441 ; the effect of withholding circula- 
tion, 441. 

Specie Payment, suspension of, 443. 

Speech on the " Panama Mission," 152. 

Spencer, Judge, 319. 

Sprague, Judge, 5.32. 

Standish, Miles, 27. 

State Banks, issue of small notes by, not 
advisable, 363. 

State Interposition, right of, 292. 

State Laws, in opposition to law of Con- 
gress, supreme, 122 ; prohibition on, ccn- 
cerning bankruptcy, 186 ; prohibition en, 
in regard to contracts, 187 ; in conflict 
with the Constitution, 265. 

State Rights Party, Mr. Calhoun's espousal 
of the, 464. 

States, concurrent power of, argued, 116, 
117 ; doctrine of South Carolina concern- 
ing rights of, 255 ; resolution of Virginia, 
1798, concerning rights of, 256, 263 ; sov- 
ereignty limits of, 257 ; right of, whence 
derived, 264 ; Calhoun's resolutions on 
sovereignty of, 273 ; taxing power of, 
limited, 336 ; have no sovereignty over 
public lands, 426 ; concerning insurrec- 
tion in one of the, 543 ; inequality of 
representation in annexing slave States, 
561. 

Stevenson, Andrew, 487. 

Stiles, Mr., correspondence of, relating to 
Hungary, 682. 

Stillingfleet, Bishop, argument on power of 
visitation over corporations, 8. 

Story, Mr. Justice, death of, 532; eulogy of 
Mr. Webster on, 532 ; respect of English 
lawyers to, 533 ; character of, 534. 

Strogonoff, Baron, concerning the massacie 
of the Greeks, 71. 

Sturges V. Crowninshleld, decision in bank- 
ruptcy case of, 180. 

Suffrage, principles of American govern- 
ment in respect to, 539. 

Sullivan, William, 137. 

Supreme Court of United States, its object, 
293; judges of, how appointed, 318; 
concerning a nomination for judge of, 
413. 

Sweden, export of iron fron, 105. 



Tariff, bill to amend the (1828), 77 ; speech 
of Mr. AVebster on, 77 ; " American " and 
"foreign policy" applied to system of, 
78; protective system of England, 84; 



INDEX. 



705 



of 181G and 1824, respecting manufac- 
tures, 99; of 1824, carried by Middle 
States, 110 ; of 1824, Massaoliusetts voted 
against, 110 ; earliest advocates of, 243; 
of 1816, 243 ; of 1824, 248; of 1828, 248, 
258 ; course pursued by Mr. Webster in 
regard to, 247, 4Go ; resolutions adojyted 
in Boston in regard to, 463; of 1810, a 
South Carolina measure, bistorj* of, 4G5; 
of 181t), Nc-w England against, 4G5 ; of 
1842, how passed, 48'J. 

Taxation, effect of, on landholders in Eng- 
land, 44. 

Taylor, Gen. Zacharj-, at Buena Vista, 559 ; 
as a candidate for President, 576-579 ; 
personal character of, 577 ; his interest in 
the revolutionary movement in Hungary, 
679. 

Tpa, increase of its consumption, 80. 

Terrett v. Taylor, protection of grant, 20. 

Territory, cession of, by Virginia, 606. 

Texas, history of, 428 ; independence of, 
recognized, 428; annexation to United 
States objectionable, 429 ; opposition of 
Iklr. Webster to admit into the Union, 
559 ; President Tyler's project of annex- 
ing, 560 ; how its annexation affects 
representation, 561; population of, in 
1848, 562 ; territory of, 562 ; admitted 
into the Union, 562, 563, 609 ; suitable 
time for annexing, 563 ; the vote for the 
admission of, 583 ; extract from resolu- 
tion for admission of, 609 ; States to 
be formed from, 009, 615; votes of New 
England for admission of, 610; extracts 
from speech of Mr. Webster on, 613, 631 ; 
separated from Mexico, 630 ; vote of New 
York for annexing, 631 ; admitted as a 
slave State, 633 ; fortunate adjustment 
by Congress of controversy in (1850), 
633. 

Timber, English duties on, 89. 

Toast, to City of New York, 319 ; to mem- 
ory of Washington, 346; at Dinner of 
New England Society in New York, 603. 

Tonnage, how affected by tariff" of 1824, 
100 ; no State can lay duty on, 122. 

Trade of United States, with foreign mar- 
kets, 93. 

Transportation of free colored people, 623. 

Treason, defined, 207. 

Treasury of United States, order concern- 
ing specie payment, 440 ; effect of the 
order, 441. 

Tudor, William, interest in Bunker Hill 
Monument, 123, 137. 

Turkey, its oppression of Greece, 68. 

Tyler, John, at Bunker Hill, 139; confi- 
dence in Mr. Webster, 481 ; action in 



respect to insurrection in Kiiode hland, 
547 ; project of annexing Texas, 5G0. 



Union, Mr. Webster's sentiments on con- 
solidation of. 24(i ; ajjostrophe to, 209; 
speech of March 7, 1850, on presi-rvation 
of the, 600; impossibility of drawing the 
line in case of dissoiiition of, (122 ; exhor- 
tation to citizens of Hutliilo to preserve- 
the, 627 ; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of atl- 
mitting Louisiana into the, fl;!0. 

Union of the States, important, 140,269, 
425 ; not a league, 278 ; liow regarded by 
Washington, 345 ; our duty to the, 456. 

United Colonies, declared free and inde- 
pendiMU States, 641. 

United States, peaceful policy of, 59 ; duty 
of, concerning international law, 60, 61, 
66; interest and duty of, in international 
law, 0^ ; position of government towartis 
South America, 66 ; exports of, com- 
pared, 79 ; navigation of, 83 ; trade with 
Holland and Russia, 93 ; duties as citizens 
of the, 176 ; how affected by pacification 
of Europe, 242; attention of, directed to 
internal improvements, 242 ; alliance with 
France declared void, 278 ; danger to, of 
dismemberment, 346 ; table showing prog- 
ress in, from 1793 to 1851, 645; progress 
of, in arts and sciences, 648 ; coast survey 
of, 648 ; military resources of, 649 ; posi- 
tion of, in respect to the Holy Alliance, 
681 ; conduct of, toward revolution in 
Hungary, 683. 

United States Bank Bill, speech of Webster 
on, 320. 

Upshur, Mr., correspondence in regard to 
Texas, 611; his object for admission of 
Texas, 611; Secretary of SUite, 500. 



V. 



Van Buren, Martin, policy of his adminis- 
tration, 455; appointid Secretary of 
State, 581 ; his instructions to Mr. Mc- 
Lane, 581 ; nominated by Free Soil Par- 
ty, 581; views of, relative to slavi-ry in 
the District of Columbia, 682 ; influence 
in annexing Texas, 682; candidate for 
Presidency in 1844. 683. 

Vansittart, Mr., resolution on tin- worth of 
a bank note, 491. 

Verona, Congress at, 1822. 153; concerning 
Grecian independence, 70. 

Veto Message, consequences of tin-, 337 ; 



45 



706 



INDEX. 



denies authority of Supreme Court and 
Congress, 338. 

Veto Power, abuse of, 49.3. 

Vienna, society of, to encourage Grecian 
literature, 72. 

Virginia, resolutions concerning commerce, 
115 ; assembly of House of Burgesses in, 
148 ; Thomas Jefferson, Governor of, 172 ; 
resolution concerning State rights, 256 ; 
resolutions of 1798 in regard to State 
rights, 2G3; ratification of the Constitu- 
tion by, 289 ; cession of her Northwestern 
territory, 606; early feeling in regard to 
slavery, 619 ; cession of her public lands, 
623; improbability of her secession, 646. 

Visit and Search, identical, 662. 

Visitation, Lord Holt's judgment on, in 
case of Exeter College, 7 ; power of, over 
corporations, 7 ; Stillingfleet's argument 
on power of, 8. 

Visitor, applied to founder of incorporated 
charity, 7. 

Volney's " Ruins of Empires," quoted, 520. 

Voltaire, followers of, admitted to Girard 
College, 513. 

Volunteers, difficulty in recruiting, 555. 



w. 

Walker, Mr., took lead in annexing Texas, 
609. 

War, only declared by Congress, 287 ; Mr. 
Webster's defence of his course in, 459 ; 
of 1812, effect on prices, 81. 

Warehouse System, of England, and United 
States, 90. 

Warren, Gen. Joseph, measures toward 
erecting a monument to, 123 ; eulogized, 
127. 

Washington, Gen. George, 131, 168, 251 ; 
remark on battle of Bunker Hill, 142 ; 
apostrophe to, 149, 653 ; decease of, 156 ; 
administration supported by New Eng- 
land, 250; his inauguration at New York, 
312; centennial anniversary at Washing- 
ton, 339; representative government es- 
tablished under, 341 ; remark of Fisher 
Ames on, 342 ; basis of his character, 342 ; 
policy as to foreign relations, 343 ; domes- 
tic policy of, 344 ; exiiortation against 
party spirit, 345 ; his regard for the Union, 
345 ; toast of Webster to memory of, 346 ; 
his practice of addressing Congress in per- 
son, 374 ; civil character of, 577 ; founda- 
tion of Capitol laid by, 644, 652 ; monu- 
ment to, 652. 

Washington City, its favorable situation, 
651 ; public dinner at, 339. 



Washington, Treaty of, letter of Mr. Web- 
ster on the ratification of the, 666. 

Webster, Daniel, remarks on African Slave 
Trade, 49 ; resolution to appoint an agent 
to Greece, 57; opinion of paper curren- 
cy, 82 ; explains his change of opinion on 
protection, llOj President of Bunker Hill 
Monument Association, 125; address on 
completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 
136; author of supposed speech against 
the Declaration, 167 ; eloquence defined 
by, 167 ; letter concerning the authorship 
of speech ascribed to John Adams, 177 ; 
his portrayal of murder, 195; reply to 
Hayne, 227 ; views on disposition of pub- 
lic lands, 237, 238; course pursued in 
Congress on internal improvements, 2J3; 
course concerning tariff, 247 ; sentiments 
on consolidation of the Union, 248 ; apos- 
trophe to the Union, 269 ; reply to Cal- 
houn in regard to State sovereignty, 273 ; 
speech at public dinner in New York, 307 ; 
defence of the Constitution, 317 ; circum- 
stances of his birth, 319 ; respect of, lor 
judicature of New York,319 ; toast to City 
of New York, 319 ; presides at centennial 
anniversary of Washington, 339 ; toast to 
Washington, 346 ; sentiments on re-elec- 
tion of Jackson, 357 ; prediction in regard 
to irredeemable paper currency, 365 ; 
remark of J. Q. Adams on, 406 ; reception 
in New York, 1837, 422; opinions on slav- 
ery, 429 ; views on hard money, 440 ; 
devoted to service of United States, 457 ; 
reply to Mr. Calhoun, 458 ; denies Mr. 
Calhoun's charges, 458-60; defence of 
his course in war, 459 ; opposes Mr. 
Dallas's bill for a bank, 460; course in 
war of 1812, 461 ; early support to the 
navy, 461 ; answers Mr. Calhoun's charges 
in regard to slavery, 462 ; answer to Cal- 
houn's charges on tariff, 463 ; political 
differences with Mr. Calhoun, 468 ; a hard- 
money man, 468 ; the log cabin of his fa- 
ther, 477 ; visit to Richmond, 478 ; speech 
at his reception in Boston, 481 ; Rep- 
resentative in Congress, 481 ; reception 
at Boston, Sept. 80, 1842, 481; Secretary 
of State under President Harrison, 482 ; 
visit and speech in England, 483 ; oppo- 
sition to his remaining in the President's 
Cabinet (1841), 486 ; delicacy of his po- 
sition in 1842, 486 ; study of the curren- 
cy question, 492; speech at dinner of 
New England Society of New York, 496 ; 
toast at dinner of New England Society, 
at New York, 503 ; correspondence arising 
under Girard Will case, 505 ; letter to 
Madam Story on death of her son, 532; 



INDEX. 



707 



opposed admission of Texas into tlie 
Union, 559 ; against extension of slavery 
and slave representation, 574 ; invited by 
eitizens of Marslifield to address them, 
575 ; letter of, to citizens of Mariiifield, 
5T5 ; addresses the citizens of Marshfield, 
5T5 ; opinion of Gen. Taylor for President, 
576; opinion of Gen. Cass for President, 
584; course concerning Texas, 012-614; 
Secretary of State, 613 ; in Senate, 613 ; 
ideas of peaceable secession, (521 ; letter 
to Kds. of National Intelligencer, enclos- 
ing letter of late Dr. Channing, 024; let- 
ter of W. E. Channing to, in respect to 
slavery, 624; reception at Buffalo, May 
'It, 1851, 020 ; course concerning slavery, 
630 ; extract from speech on annexing 
Texas, 631 ; course during the crises of 
1850, 637; account of laying the corner 
stone of the Capitol, 652 ; letter to Lord 
Ashburton on impressment of seamen, 
655 ; letter to Gen. Cass in respect to his 
canstruction of the treaty of Washington, 
666, 667, 673 ; letter to ]Mr. Ticknor in re- 
spect to the Hiilsemann letter, 678; letter 
to J. G. Hiilsemann in respect to Mr. 
Mann's mission, 079 ; as a master of Eng- 
lish style, xi ; influence over and respect 
for the landed democracy, xiv ; manage- 
ment of the Goodridge robbery case, xv ; 
story told of him by Mr. Peter Harvey, 
XV ; early style of rhetoric, xviii ; letter 
to his friend Bingham, xix ; acquaintance 
with Jeremiah Mason, xix ; incident con- 
nected with the Dartmouth College argu- 
ment, xxi ; effect of his Plymouth oration 
of 1820, xxii ; note to Mr. Geo. Ticknor 
on his Bunker Hill oration, 1825, xxiii ; 
esteem for Henry J. Raymond, xxiv ; 
the image of the British drum-beat, xxix ; 
power of compact statement, xxxi ; pro- 
test against Mr. Benton's Expunging 
Resolution, xxxi ; arguments against nul- 
lification and secession unanswerable, 
xxxiii ; moderation of expression, xxxv ; 
abstinence from personalities, xxxvi ; li- 
belled by his political enemies, xxxvi; 
use of the word " respectable," xl ; and 
Calhoun in debate, xliii; as a writer of 
State papers, xliv ; as a stump orator, 
xlv ; a friend of the laboring man, xlvi; 
compared with certain poets, xlviii; 
death-bed declaration of, li ; fame of his 
speeches, li.; compared with other ora- 



tors, Ivi ; idealization of tiie Constitution, 
lix ; anecdote of liis differing from Ixjrd 
Camden, Ixii. 

Wibstir, Fletcher, letter to Gen. Cuss, 667. 

Weir, Robert N., his jiainting of the Em- 
barkation of the Pilgrims, 52. 

Wesley, John, anecdote of, 511. 

West India colonies, 34. 

Wlieelock, Rev. E., founder of Dartmouth 
College, 1. 

Whig, origin of the term, 470. 

Whigs, of New York, 443 ; Convention of, 
in Boston, 480; of Mass. declare separa- 
tion from the President, 487 ; the revolu- 
tion of 1840, success of the, 488; (Jen. 
Taylor nominated by, 575. 

White, Capt. Joseph, account of the mur- 
der of, 189 ; argument of Webster on, 
194. 

White, Mr., 416. 

Wickliffe, John, burnt for heresy, 59t). 

Wilkins, Mr., bill of, concerning tariff, 273. 

Williams, .Mr., 489. 

Wilmot Proviso, to be applied to Texas 
and other acquisitions, 611, 012; Mr. 
Polk's opinion of the, 010 ; not to be u»ed 
as a reproach to Southern State.-:, 616 ; 
espoused by the Free-Soil men, 631 ; 
proposition to api)ly to New Mexico and 
California, 632. 

Windham, Mr., remark of, 622. 

Winslow, Edward, Jr., first address on an- 
niversary of landing of Pilgrims de- 
livered by, 25. 

Winthrop, R. C, voted for tarifi" of 1842, 
489. 

Witherspoon, Mr., motion in Congress con- 
cerning commerce, 115. 

Woman, how she performs her part in free 
government, 479. 

Wool, proposition of English Parliament to 
abolish tax on, 90. 

Woollen Manufactures, how affected by 
tariff of 1824, 101 ; of Englaml and 
United States, 102. 

Wright, Silas, voted for tariff of 1842, 480. 



Y. 



York, Duke of, anecdote in respect to his 

accession to the crown, 686. 
Ypsilanti, Alexander, leads insurrection in 

Moldavia, 72. 






LH?BFe15 



c^ £ 



WORKS AND BIOGRAPHIES OF DANIEL WEBSTER. 



WEBSTER'S Life and Works. The Speeches, Forensic Arguments, 
and Dipluiiialic Papers of Daniel Webster. With a Notice of liis Life and Works, by 
Edward Everett. 6 vols. 8vo. Portraits. Cloth, ;Ji8.oo ; slieep, #^4.00 ; half calf, 53000. 

These volumes are a collection of imperishable models in constitutional law, jurisprudence, inter- 
national law, diplomacy, finance, legislation, and literature, — a collection not to be matched by thi» 
and hardly by any other country, in capital and multiform excellence. These productions will be per- 
petuated as long as the English language endures. 

WEBSTER'S Private Correspondence. The Private Correspondence of 
Daniel Webster, with the Autobiography. Edited by his Son, FLiiTciiEU Wi.ii-,tkk. 2 vol.v 
Svo. Portraits. Cloth. $6.00. 

WEBSTER'S Speeches. The Great Orations and Speeches of Daniel 
Web.ster. With an Introductory Essay on " Daniel Webster as a Master of English Style." 
By Edwin P. Whipple. With a new Portrait. Svo. Cloth. $3.00. 

REMINISCENCES and Anecdotes of Daniel Webster. Ky Pkter Har- 
vey. With Portrait, ^et. 22 ; Full Length Sketch of Mr. Webster, in Fisherman's Costume, 
by Ames; Green Harbor at Marshfield ; Library at Marshfield; Statue at Centnal Park, New York. 
Svo. Cloth, 53.00; half calf, $5.00; tree calf, gilt, S7-5o- 

OPINIONS. 

" A work of extraordinary interest." — Boston Daily Advertiser. 

" This is a book replete with absorbing interest from beginning to end." — Boston Post- 

"Nothing more instructive and entertaining has ever issued from the American press." — 5<»j/flM 
Sunday Herald. 

" There is no more charming and delightful volume than ' Reminiscences and Anecdotes of Daniel 
Webster,' by Peter Harvey." —Albany Eveni7ig "jfounial. 

" Mr- Harvey's volume cannot fail to render the character of Daniel Webster much more faraili-v 
to his countrymen, who honor his memory and proudly preserve his fame." — Ne^u York Sun. 

"Open it where you may, you can scarcely fail to meet something worth reading and remembering." 
— Philadelphia Press. 

" Anecdote and incident are woven so charmingly that the dead statesman stands out, photograplied 
in the majestic proportions of his character." — Providence Press. 

"It is a very interesting volume all through. Much of it is delightfully humorous." — /'.-/'W/ 
Advertiser and Tribune. 

"The most readable volume of its class ever issued from the press in Boston." — Boston yotimat 

"A work of rare interest." — Portland Transcript. 

" Provides a remarkable fund of entertainment for intelligent readers of every deRree. There U 
scarcely a page that is not full of point : anecdote after anecdote flows on as though the supply would 
never be exhausted ; and what is more astonishing is that in such an almost endless supply there should 
be so little of an inferior quality." — Boston Gazette. 

" While it would be unjust to compare him (Mr. Harvey) with the sycophantic Scot, he h.is re.illv 
served the purpose, as regards Webster, that Boswell did in presenting Johnson with photographic 
vividness to the world." — Boston Courier. 

LI rri.K, JiRfJW N, iS: CU., ruBLisuKKs, 

254 IVashini^ton Street, Rostoit. 



627 «« 



LRBFe'K 



o^£ 












7 , ^ ■•C^ 















<?• 















s^ 






















-V 






^ 



V 



c >■ 



■^■ 



<- .V 



V^^ -^C^ 



v>i-" ^c. 



> 







ii 



■>. :' 



m^ 



tiiiahrif: 



mm. 



ft?if Lr\r^. 




